Genetically engineered plants or animals, often called GMOs, were developed through biotechnology and often carry genes from a bacteria or virus. Biotechnology has been used to help crops better withstand drought, be resistant to insects or be better suited to control weeds. Genetic modifications can help animals to better utilize the feed they eat. Find out What foods have been genetically modified?

GMOs and Sustainability

In this series, we are looking at sustainability and the inherent tradeoffs and benefits of specific practices in farming and food production.

To learn more about biotechnology, we reached out to Dr. Pamela Ronald, a distinguished professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California-Davis. She has gained worldwide recognition for her work in genetically engineering rice to better withstand plant diseases and flooding.

“Rice is an important staple food crop for more than half the world’s people, so it’s really important to work with,” Dr. Ronald said. “Even a small change that you can make in the ability of the plant to survive stress or resist disease can have an impact on millions of people.”

Are GMOs good or bad?

That depends.

First, Dr. Ronald said the biotech foods are safe to grow and to eat. “There’s no question about that. They’ve been planted for 25 years now,” she said. “They have reduced the use of chemical insecticide, and I think that’s really important for people to know.”

Find out more about GMOs and human health.

Dr. Ronald also explained that biotechnology is just one of the tools farmers can use to help produce food. When farmers have access to a variety of tools or techniques, they can choose the ones that work best for each crop, for each location and for each situation.

“All farmers rely on seeds to grow their crops, and farmers are looking for seeds that help make agriculture more productive and sustainable,” Dr. Ronald said. “They want to use less land, use water more efficiently, use soil more efficiently. They want to reduce the use of harmful inputs. Every type of contribution can be really important for farmers.”

Dr. Ronald’s husband is an organic farmer. She noted that every type of farming has tradeoffs. As an example, in order to grow a crop, the soil must be disturbed and native plants are removed.

The key is weighing the impacts, tradeoffs and benefits, and then making an informed choice. “We farm because we have to eat,” she noted. “It’s a huge tradeoff. How do we farm more sustainably and try to minimize our impact on the environment?”

Some farmers have found that GMOs can contribute to making farming more sustainable. Dr. Ronald gave an example of farmers in Bangladesh growing eggplant. Previously, farmers needed to spray insecticide several times a week during the growing season to save the crop from destructive insects. In recent years, they have planted a genetically modified eggplant seed that contains a gene from a bacteria that prevents the insects from reproducing. As a result, the farmers use much less insecticide spray, the crops have yielded more eggplant from the same amount of land and families have a better income. You can learn more about it in Dr. Ronald’s Ted Talk.

Because there is a lot of misunderstanding and incorrect information about GMOs, Dr. Ronald encourages those with questions to explore reputable sources of information, such as the National Academy of Sciences. or the USDA.

“I think it’s important to realize that all farmers rely on seeds that have been genetically altered in some manner. The method is not important. What matters is what kind of trait that’s being imparted to the plant,” she said.

“It’s always good to just think about the challenges faced by farmers. Floods come through, which is predicted to occur more frequently with climate change. Then some farmers can’t grow their crops because there’s not enough water. Some farmers’ crops are devastated by insect pests. So anytime you can develop crops that are resistant to insects, it can have a massive benefit to farmers.”

Weighing the Benefits and Tradeoffs

GMOs and biotechnology have both benefits and tradeoffs. The benefits are that GMOs can help plants or animals grow more efficiently, which means more food produced using fewer natural resources. GMOs can reduce the use of insecticides and harmful herbicides.

On the other hand, GMO crops often involve the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, which is concerning to some consumers. Some perceive that food produced through GMOs is less natural, because of the modification process and introduction of genetic material not native to the original organism. Some people have concerns that genes from the modified plants or animals could transfer to other organisms. There are also concerns that farmers’ reliance on certain types of GMOs could contribute to biodiversity loss or cause over-production.

In the United States, some people have reservations about biotechnology that is owned by corporations, and they worry this could put small companies or farmers at a disadvantage. In other countries, such as in the case of Bangladesh’s eggplant, the seeds were generated by non-profits and distributed free to farmers.

Biotechnology should not be viewed as a one-size-fits all solution to farming challenges. It must be managed in conjunction with other techniques.

“It’s not that once you choose biotech over another approach, that’s it. It really depends on the particular farming system and what’s being used at the time,” Dr. Ronald said.

Science is a continuum with each researcher’s work building on others. Biotechnology can be part of the solution to make agriculture more sustainable around the world.

GMO involves the genetic modification of plants and animals to improve crops and food production. With any practice, there are tradeoffs and benefits. Many experts concur that GMO technology offers tools and solutions that farmers can use to make food production more sustainable.

The post Sustainability: Are GMOs Good or Bad? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

It’s called the Habanada and is the creation of Cornell University plant breeder Michael Mazourek, who developed the pepper as part of his doctorate research. According to an article at the Cornell website, Mazourek wondered, “what if there was a pepper I could share with my friends who didn’t like hot peppers so they could taste what I love without the heat?”

The Scoville Scale measures levels of capsaicin, the chemical that causes a pepper’s burning sensation. A breed of pepper called Carolina Reaper, touted as the hottest pepper in the world, registers over 2 million units. Police-grade pepper spray measures 5.3 million units. A traditional habanero can hit the 300,000-unit level while the Habanada would be more like a traditional Bell Pepper with a score of zero.

Nearly a decade after Mazourek produced his first Habanada, the peppers aren’t yet readily available at grocery stores, but top chefs across the country give the pepper rave reviews. They’re becoming increasingly popular at farmers’ markets and seeds are available online for backyard gardeners. A review at one seed company’s website said, “It has the amazing sweet, melon-like flavor that you have almost forgotten a habanero has. But the minute you try (the Habanado), you immediately recognize it and prepare for the immense heat that you instinctively know is about to be unleashed, but … it never comes. Bravo!”

Mazourk uses traditional plant breeding – the art and science of changing the traits of plants in order to produce desired characteristics. One major technique of plant breeding is “selection” – the process of selectively propagating plants with desirable characteristics and eliminating or “culling” those with less desirable characteristics.

Few fresh fruits and vegetables are produced using genetic engineering, although that is changing. Since fruits and vegetables are not as widely grown as crops such as corn and soybeans, seed companies have not been as motivated to deal with the difficult and expensive safety tests and federal regulatory process required to approve a GMO for the consuming public.

There are exceptions as virus-resistant papaya, plum and squash, pest-resistant sweet corn and non-browning apples and potatoes are among genetically-engineered items that are nearing the marketplace. Read more about how technology helps crops grow here.

The post Is it Possible to Take the Heat out of the Habanero? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Corn (field & sweet)
The GM version of field corn protects the crop against corn rootworms and the Asian corn borer. Like GM field corn, GM sweet corn also protects the crop against destructive pests.

Soybeans
The GM soybean plant is resistant to pests and disease as well as being tolerant of herbicides that are most effective, allowing for less herbicide use overall.

Cotton
GM cotton requires fewer pesticides and protects against the cotton bollworm.

Canola
Canola has been modified through biotechnology to make it tolerant to some herbicides. This allows for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. The modified plant also has resistance to pests and fungus.

Alfalfa
The GM version of alfalfa is tolerant of some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control.

Sugar Beets
The GM sugar beet has increased tolerance to some herbicides, allowing for a reduced amount of chemicals needed for weed control. GM sugar beets also have virus and pest resistance traits.

Papaya
The GM version of papaya makes the plant resistant to the prevalent Papaya Ringspot Virus.

Squash
GM squash has traits that improve the plant’s defense against viruses.

Arctic Apple
Developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits of British Columbia, Canada, this new fruit was developed by turning off the enzyme in apples that cause them to brown when cut, bruised or bitten.

Innate Potato
This new potato that resists browning and has fewer unsightly wasteful bruises has been approved by the USDA for commercial planting.

Aquabounty Salmon
This new salmon is genetically engineered to reach market size more quickly than non-GE farm-raised Atlantic salmon. It is available to consumers in Canada.

Want to learn more about GMOs from the experts? Try these posts:

What does a GMO look like?
GMO FAQs

Lasted edited Aug. 15, 2016
Originally posted  Nov. 13, 2014

_{“Produce” by lukestehr is licensed under CC BY ND.}

The post What Foods are Genetically Modified? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

OSF sent us a few of the Golden Delicious variety of Arctic Apple for us to try. To find out if there was a difference in taste between the genetically modified apple and a traditional apple you can currently find at the grocery store, we put them to the test with our Best Food Facts team. Here’s what they said:

Neither this video nor the taste test was sponsored by OSF. The opinions shared are those of the taste testers.

_{The image “In one movement….” by storebukkebruse is licensed under CC BY 2.0.}

The post How Now Brown…Apple? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Ever wonder why some crops only grow in certain areas of the country? Have any advances in technology made it possible for these growing regions to expand? We asked experts Wayne Parrot, PhD, Crop and Soil Scientist at the University of Georgia, and Stephen Baenziger, PhD, Agronomy and Horticulture Professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, for some thoughts on how technology has helped agriculture production.

Have there been any advances in food/crop technologies that could make new crops available to be grown in different regions?

Dr. Baenziger:

Farmers, scientists and agricultural companies are always looking for new traits. When you look at corn, technologies allow it to be more tolerant of freezes and farmers have tillage practices now that allow it to be grown in different areas. You take advantage of everything given to you, plant corn earlier and now it can recover from frost. Genetics can change the growing season, too. Some of that is by cultural practices and a lot of the advances are from biotechnology.

Dr. Parrott:

Extremes always limit crop growth – too wet, too dry, too hot, too cold, as well as soil that is too acidic or too salty. Thus, tolerance to all these conditions is important. Already, there are corn hybrids that can still grow under dry conditions. The eucalyptus tree is one of the best sources of pulpwood for paper, but it’s a tropical tree that would not normally survive in the U.S. But a eucalyptus modified to survive in cold weather is being tested in the U.S. As such, it’s a great example of the type of crop we could see at some future date.

Have any advances in technology – food or crops, preservation or transportation – helped get food from one region to another?

Dr. Parrott:

Refrigeration and other technologies that keep fruit from ripening have made it possible to grow crops in the places that have the best growing conditions for them and ship them to consumers at very low cost. This has been accompanied by the development of varieties that can hold up to shipping. However, the old adage that it’s hard to get somethiing for nothing comes to bear here. Modern fruits and vegetables survive shipping, but at the expense of taste. The choice boils down to having great taste a few weeks of the year, or OK taste year ’round. With time, it will be possible to develop new varieties that ship well and preserve their taste.

Dr. Baenziger:

The biggest thing on that is that we have our technologies and supply chain very refined now. The food that the King of England ate long ago was not that different from the food we may have on our table, but the spoilage factor would have been extreme. That’s a huge difference. How much less food is wasted to get to us is extraordinary. Also, the technology to find and detect pathogens makes our food so much safer than it was in the past, and that’s all due to technology.

Do these improvements in technology affect food safety?

Dr. Baenziger:

Our food has never been safer. If we do have problems, we can find them and resolve them more quickly.

Dr. Parrott:

There are two technologies here. The ones used to improve plants and the ones used to produce and distribute food. Humans have developed hundreds of thousands of new varieties, with no more than a handful of issues, which makes plant variety development one of the safest technologies in history. Production and distribution technology have also contributed to keeping food safe for consumption. So in general, modern technology either has no effect or improves food safety.

What will the future look like regarding crops and growing areas? Any shifts or trends?

Dr. Baenziger:

It will continue to be market driven. Right now, they’re bringing out drought-tolerant corn. There has been a massive investment in corn, so naturally those crops will continue to expand. There is more private investment coming into wheat, so that’s probably good for wheat. Growers have to respond to the market and if they can get a better return per acre by growing a crop that’s heavily resourced over one that is not, the only way the secondary crop can compete is if the market pays a premium. As we become wealthier, you will see more diversity, but at the same time you will be paying for that diversity.

Dr. Parrott:

Ideally, food production technology needs to mazimize yields per area, while it minimizes the inputs and the environmental footprint of doing so. If past trends are any indication, we are on a good trend. Food production in the U.S. increased 50 percent in the past 30 years, while using slightly less land. However, future improvements cannot be taken for granted. What the future will look like depends on how much innovation is permitted. Globally, the legal and regulatory restrictions on agricultural innovation are at an all-time high and research investment is at a low period.

Have any other technologies helped improve foods?

Dr. Baenziger:

Technology has improved some foods by removing the anti-quality factors. Canola is a great example – the erucic acid, which has been linked with heart issues and other problems in animals, was removed. We’re making things that were industrial crops into human crops. That’s good for diversity in growing and for consumers who would like to buy their food locally. Agriculture has a long history of developing things to fit market need.

Has technology affected the environmental footprint of crops?

Dr. Parrott:

Economies of scale come into play when food is produced in the best area for it. Most people would be surprised to see how the agricultural environmental footprint is minimized when that is done – even if the food is then shipped long distance. When food is grown locally, people tend to forget that the inputs (seeds, fertilizer, protectants, and even water in some cases) for that crop are still shipped in from elsewhere!

Ultimately though, what genetic and agronomic technologies have in common is that they contribute to sustainability by increasing the yields that can be obtained in any given amount of land, while at the same time not using more inputs such as water, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals.

The post How Technology Helps Crops Grow appeared first on Best Food Facts.

What factors drove the development of a non-browning variety of apple?

Carter:

Apple consumption has been flat-to-declining for the past couple decades, while obesity rates have been increasing. Consumers are demanding more convenience than ever and browning is the number one barrier to apples meeting the demand as a more “snackable” food.

We know the demand is there, as evidenced by findings such as the Produce Marketing Association determining that apples are consumers’ most requested packaged produce item. Non-browning apples open the door to higher-quality, lower-cost fresh-cut apple products because they reduce the need for anti-browning solutions, which can add up to 40% in processing costs and may affect taste. Additionally, a recent study from Cornell University found that children eat around 70% more apples when they’re served pre-sliced.

So, we know that Arctic® apples can boost consumption by offering new product opportunities, opening new markets, reducing costs, improving quality and boosting convenience. Additionally, apples are one of the most wasted foods on the planet, and much of that waste is due to superficial bruising/browning throughout the supply chain. Another key reason we decided to make non-browning apples our flagship project over other possibilities is because the stigma attached to them being a biotech product is largely balanced by the fact that Arctic apples are one of the only biotech foods with a direct consumer benefit.

In fact, the fact that most biotech crops haven’t offered consumer benefits to date is perhaps the main reason a stigma exists in the first place.

What kinds of things take place during the approval process?

Carter:

It has been a long and rigorous process! In the mid-90s, we became aware of work being done in Australia to develop potatoes that had reduced levels of polyphenol oxidase, the enzyme that causes browning in many fruits and vegetables. We knew this would provide benefits for the apple industry and spent a number of years determining the best way to apply this technology to apples.

Once we were able to successfully prove the science in 2002, we received approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to plant field trials in 2003 (after a great deal of paperwork and satisfying a number of requirements). We then had these trials closely monitored, primarily by independent horticultural specialists who collected a great deal of data. A wide range of testing and analysis on both the orchard and the fruit itself was performed to satisfy USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) requirements, such as environmental impact evaluation (cross-pollination studies, ensuring no plant pest risks exist, etc.) compositional analysis, testing for novel proteins, and much more.

After sufficient information was collected, we submitted a petition requesting deregulation (commercial approval) to the USDA in 2010. After extensive data review and two additional public comment periods, the process is complete and the Arctic apple can now be made available to the U.S. public. That said, it takes a number of years for newly-planted trees to produce significant quantities of fruit. So, we expect to have small quantities available for test markets in fall 2016, with an increasing amount of fruit available each consecutive year.

Will consumers be able to tell the difference in taste and texture? Will they be more expensive than regular apples?

Carter:

For the first bite of a perfect, undamaged piece of fruit, an Arctic® Granny’s taste and texture would be indistinguishable from a conventional Granny Smith. The same goes for an Arctic® Golden vs. a conventional Golden Delicious or any other Arctic variety compared to its conventional counterpart. But, that changes if both had been already bitten, sliced or bruised, because Arctic apples better retain their positive sensory characteristics.

While OSF will not have control over retail pricing, Arctic apple varieties will likely be comparable in price to their conventional counterparts, thus offering a better value to the consumer.

Are there benefits to the Arctic® apple besides the fact it won’t turn brown?

Carter:

In addition to the improved visual and mouth appeal in sliced apples, nutrients like vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic content that is typically “burned up” in the browning reaction are better retained in Arctic fruit. As previously mentioned, Arctic apples also avoid the need for costly anti-browning treatments that can create an “off-taste”, and in some circumstances create allergy concerns such as sulfite use in dried apple products.

For whole apples, superficial bruises will not result in unsightly brown marks, which offers a number of benefits. Many apples are thrown out or downgraded because of superficial damage from when they are picked until they are eaten. Arctic apples can greatly reduce this waste.

Another great example of a benefit the average consumer would never consider or be aware of is that lighter-skinned varieties such as Golden Delicious are typically warmed up prior to packing. This is done to make them softer so they’re less prone to packing-line damage. However, this costs time and money, and also permanently reduces the crispness of these apples. Arctic Goldens would not need to undergo this process – benefitting both packers and consumers.

Additionally, if there is meaningful damage on a piece of fruit, such as from bacterial or fungal infection, Arctic apples will still show discoloration. This makes it easier for consumers to judge the true quality of the fruit.

Aldwinckle:

I think the new technology will increase consumption of apples, especially by kids who would otherwise not eat them once they turned brown despite being perfectly healthy and nutritious. The ability to have pre-packaged apple slices in the produce section that don’t brown will be a great convenience for parents looking for a nutritous snack for their children’s lunch boxes. Nutrition will likely improve as a result, because apples contain many nutrients that are known to help keep us healthy.

Is there a way for consumers to tell they are genetically modified?

Carter:

We plan to work with marketers of Arctic apples to assure that consumers who buy apples can identify Arctic apples at the retail shelf, as well as provide a mechanism by which they can learn more about Arctic apples at point of sale.

Do you think consumers are ready for a genetically modified apple?

Aldwinckle:

I can appreciate consumer concerns, and my hunch is that they’re worried because the technology is new to them. A non-browning apple sounds unusual, and we’ve gotten used to apples turning brown. I can tell you, however, that this technology is very safe. We’re not introducing any new genes to stop the browning effect – we’re actually silencing the genes that cause the browning. It’s a very gentle technology, and I’ve found no danger to the healthfulness of the fruit.

Carter:

Absolutely! We’ve done a great deal of consumer research over the past few years, including focus groups, online surveys, taste tests and more. Our findings consistently demonstrate that the vast majority of consumers are interested in non-browning Arctic apples. And, while we know that some consumers are initially unsupportive because Arctic apples are produced with biotechnology, once they learn more about the science behind them, most consumers’ likelihood to purchase increases to an even higher level than before they knew they were genetically engineered.

_{“Camera Test Apple” by Kirinohana is licensed under CC BY.}

The post Developers Hope New Fruit Becomes the Apple of Consumers’ Eye appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Provided to us by Dr. Wayne Parrot, Professor in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at the University of Georgia, here’s what GMO plants look like!

This slideshow shows GMO crops next to plants that exhibit the disease or condition to which the GMO crop is resistant.

Read more about GMOs from these resources:

• United States Food and Drug Administration
• United States Department of Agriculture
• World Health Organization
• National Academies of Science
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Food Standards Australia New Zealand

_{“20120106-OC-AMW-0362” by U.S. Department of Agriculture is licensed under CC BY 2.0.}

The post What Does a GMO Look Like? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

The video below explores food safety issues related to GM foods through a conversation between an Illinois mom and blogger, Betsie Estes, and a plant molecular geneticist, Dr. Sally Mackenzie, from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

We’re interested in understanding what additional questions you have for Dr. Sally. Feel free to submit questions below or here.

What did other experts have to say about whether genetically modified crops are dangerous to eat?

Do genetically modified foods cause allergies?

Dr. Bruce Chassy:

“All GE crops are subjected to a thorough pre-market safety assessment which includes a systematic analysis of any potential to produce allergies before they come to market. There is no reason to believe that GE crops would give rise to allergies. The claim that they might produce, or have produced allergies, is misleading. There are no valid scientific reports that support this claim.”

Do GM foods undergo human safety tests?

Dr. Chassy:

“Extensive compositional testing is done to assure that there is no loss of nutrients and no introduction or increase in potentially toxic compounds, anti-nutrients, or allergens. The safety of the new trait introduced into the crop is also carefully tested in the laboratory and in animals. Human safety tests are not used on whole foods because they lack sensitivity – just try to get a human to eat a diet that is 30 percent soybeans or 30 percent corn. Food safety experts, nutritional scientists and toxicologists have developed very effective methods for evaluating the safety of foods that are used for all novel foods and ingredients independent of whether they are GE. FDA concluded in 1980 that whole food studies in humans and animals are not recommended since they are of little value in predicting safety.”

Dr. Wayne Parrott:

“It turns out there are much better ways to test for safety. Working with humans is difficult: first, we do not have inbred laboratory strains of humans the way we have rats and mice. Getting humans to eat the same meal for days on end is difficulty, and humans have lots of bad habits (ranging from lack of exercise to getting to bed too late) that can throw results off.”

How can GMOs be safe if they aren’t natural?

Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin:

“Biotech products are far safer than other methods that are used to introduce traits and value into crop products. We have been modifying crops for about 10,000 years. And a lot of the older technology is not subject to regulatory review because it is “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS). An example of this is RoundUp Ready soybeans (ones that can tolerate pesticides and herbicides). Before being made available to the public, they were subject to 1,800 tests. Some examples of foods in the modern diet that are also considered GRAS include:

• Wheat used for pasta – the technology came from a nuclear research facility after World War II.
• Asian pears – they’ve been irradiated at a facility in Japan
• Barley, used for Irish beer and Scotch whiskey – comes from corn that was irradiated at a nuclear research facility
• Asparagus – all asparagus consumed today is the product of biotechnology”

Dr. Parrott:

“It’s not a good idea to assume natural automatically means safe. Salmonella, aflatoxins, botulism, poison ivy, strychnine, arsenic, asbestos and lead are all natural substances that are not safe for humans. Although humans have been modifying their food for centuries, the point is that many extra precautions are used when food is modified by biotechnology. These include an extensive series of laboratory and animal safety studies. In contrast, food produced with other technologies is simply assumed to be safe, and no extra testing is usually required.”

What role does GM food have in the increase of food allergies and attention deficit disorder (ADD) in children?

Dr. Parrott:

“There is data from Europe which shows that allergies were on the rise well before the era of GMOs. Furthermore, GMO crops are extensively tested before marketing with a special emphasis to make sure they do not cause allergies. At this point, I cannot think of anything that is uniquely different or uniquely present in GM crops that could be associated with any negative effects on people.”

Dr. Chassy:

“None. There is simply no connection between GM crops and the small increase in food allergy that may or may not be occurring – allergists are still arguing among themselves if it is more allergies or more frequent diagnosis. Those who think allergies are increasing have a theory, also unproven, that raising our children in very sanity conditions may be a factor in allergies. The theory goes that since the food allergy immune response is mediated by the parasite immune system, and we don’t need that system very much because of improvements in sanitation; the idle system sometimes reacts to foods that it normally wouldn’t react to. But that’s just one idea, allergists really don’t know the reason, but no responsible allergist implicates GM crops. Note that reports of allergies increasing started coming in long before the first GM crops were planted. And GM crops are the only types of crops that are actually carefully studied to make sure they don’t cause allergies before they are put on the market, so they are less likely to cause allergies than most foods. The fact is, 90+ percent of food allergies are caused by a few commonly eaten foods: fish, shellfish, milk, wheat, soy, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts. Of those, only soybeans (soy products) are planted as a GM crop, so it’s hard to see how GM crops would be contributing to allergies. There is no evidence of a connection between GM crops and ADD and no sound scientific reason to think there should be. Rates of ADD are also increasing, but doctors think this is because of growing awareness and higher rates of diagnosis.”

None. There is simply no connection between GM crops and the small increase in food allergy that may or may not be occurring
Click To Tweet

Still have questions? Submit them below or at here.

_{“Soy Beans01” by rikahi} 

The post VIDEO: GM Foods: Are They Dangerous? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Consumers are becoming increasingly more interested in where their food comes from, and they have a right to know what they’re eating. Should foods containing GMOs be labeled so that consumers are aware of whether their foods contain them, and so they can have the choice to purchase them or not?

Dr. Byrne:

In an ideal world, consumers would be well informed about the pros and cons of GMOs and would make rational decisions about whether to purchase or avoid them. In my experience, the general public, as well as groups that one would expect to be better informed (such as high school science teachers) are very poorly informed. The anti-GMO groups have been so diligent in spreading fearful messages about GMOs that I expect a label would be interpreted as a warning that there is something dangerous about GMOs in food.

In an ideal world, consumers would be well informed about the pros and cons of GMOs and would make rational decisions about whether to purchase or avoid them
Click To Tweet

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified GMOs as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS), so do we really need to label food products containing GMOs?

Dr. Byrne:

The FDA does require labels in cases where a GMO food has altered allergenic, toxic, or nutritional properties compared to the conventional counterpart. GMOs, like any new technology, have potential risks that should be carefully evaluated before they are de-regulated. The risks will vary depending on the crop, the trait and the specific transgene involved. Therefore, it is important to have a regulatory system that carefully evaluates risks and benefits and acts to ensure public safety.

Are there currently any GMO labeling requirements?

Dr. Byrne:

In addition to what’s mentioned above, FDA has published guidelines on voluntary labeling of GMO-containing foods or foods without GMO ingredients.

What benefits are there for labeling GMO food products?

Dr. Byrne:

If a consumer chooses to avoid GMO-containing foods for whatever reason, he/she would be able to do so by paying attention to labels. Labeling could open up markets for non-GMO foods.

What disadvantages are there for labeling GMO food products?

Dr. Byrne:

Although there are many uncertainties about the cost of labeling, there would certainly be some increased costs involved, due to the need for testing and segregation of products. The costs would be imposed on the whole food system, not just those concerned about the issue. The US food system infrastructure is currently not capable of segregating GMO and non-GMO ingredients and products. The restriction on GMOs in the form of labeling would likely discourage investment in future development of GMO crop varieties. This would be unfortunate, because for certain traits and crops GMO technology might be the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective solution to a problem such as drought stress or insect damage.

The post GMO Labeling: What You Need to Know appeared first on Best Food Facts.