Gene editing is a new technology that scientists are using to make targeted, precise changes to the DNA of living organisms. While these edits happen at a microscopic (molecular) level, they have the potential to make a significant positive impact on our world.

In the field of medicine, scientists are researching how gene editing can treat diseases such as cancer, sickle cell anemia and a wide range of genetic disorders.  Read How can CRISPR treat disease?

In agriculture, gene editing is used to breed plants and animals, reduce diseases, and minimize the impact of pests and severe weather. Gene editing can also be used to make foods taste better, increase nutrients and prolong shelf-life to reduce waste.

For example, a new type of leafy greens that are higher in nutrients and more flavorful are now available in foodservice. Gene edited tomatoes are sold in Japan and the UK. Many more gene-edited foods are on the horizon, with more than 500 products under development globally, according to S&P Global.

As the use of gene editing continues to become more prevalent in food and agriculture, Best Food Facts set out to learn more about it. We reached out to three experts – Dr. Rodolphe Barrangou, Distinguished Professor at North Carolina State University; Dr. Zhongde Wang, Professor at Utah State University; and Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, Goodnight-NC GSK Foundation Distinguished Professor in Social Sciences at North Carolina State University and co-founder and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center – to get their insight about this new technology.

The series contains three articles:

• What is gene editing?
• Are gene-edited foods safe to eat?
• How can gene editing make the food system more sustainable?

What is gene editing?

Dr. Barrangou: “It is a set of molecular tools that enables molecular biologists to edit the DNA sequence of virtually any organism on planet Earth, anyway we want at speed and at scale.”

Dr. Kuzma: “It is a set of techniques for very site-specific introductions or changes in the genome at a particular location. You can make very small changes to the genome. Gene editing often relies on enzymes called site-directed nucleases that will cut the DNA in a particular location. Then if you provide an additional DNA template, the genome will copy that change, much like changing a letter in a word or sentence. That’s what distinguishes gene editing from the first generation of genetically engineered crops, which were not as targeted or specific.”

Improvements through history

Gene editing is the latest technique being used to develop better food.

Even before scientists fully understood genes and DNA, they studied genetics searching for ways to make life better. For instance, about 3,000 years ago, farmers in Asia bred horses and donkeys to produce mules for transportation and farm work. The corn we know today was first grown by Indigenous peoples in North America, who bred maize plants to produce better grain. Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, kohlrabi and brussels sprouts all came from the wild mustard plant, which farmers bred to develop specific traits. And now, gene editing is accelerating those improvements.

Production animals such as cows, pigs and chickens have been bred to improve the production of milk, beef, bacon and eggs, Dr. Barrangou said. The challenge for scientists is that it takes a long time for a plant or animal to grow and pass the desired traits to its offspring. Gene editing allows researchers to speed the process.

“Instead of waiting years and multiple breeding cycles to have more flavorful tomatoes or higher yielding corn or better tasting kale, or brighter, more oxidant-containing berries and grapes, we can use genome editing technologies to bestow some of those traits upon the species of interest at speed, scale and cost,” Dr. Barrangou said.

Learn more about how gene editing is being used in food:

• Tomatoes with more Vitamin D
• Soybean oil without trans fats
• Cows with a slick coat to tolerate heat
• Better tasting mustard greens
• Progress toward disease-resistant pigs
• Removing allergens from wheat, peanuts and milk

What’s the difference between GMOs and gene editing?

Dr. Wang: “GMOs refers to any organism whose genome has been modified. The term GMOs was coined before gene editing techniques were available. Gene editing is totally different from the traditional genetic modification methods used in making GMOs in that gene editing is a process of changing the genome with single nucleotide precision while traditional genetic modification tends to introduce DNA from other organisms.”

Read Are GMOs Good or Bad?

What are some of the uses of gene editing that you see as most promising?

Dr. Barrangou: “The ability to recode the code of life of all organisms from very simple basic viruses to microscopic bacteria, fungi, yeast and the like, all the way to sophisticated large organisms like livestock that we eat, plants including crops that we consume and of course, humans for medical applications. And even in environmental stewardship for things like trees and forestry. It is a transformative, disruptive technology that allows humankind to recode the code of life across the planet.”

Dr. Wang: “Developing gene therapy techniques for human medicine, developing new animal models, and improving the genetics of livestock. It could also be very promising in synthetic biology.”

Synthetic biology involves redesigning organisms for useful purposes by engineering them to have new abilities.

Is there anything you would like people to know about gene editing?

Dr. Barrangou: “As scientists, we want to use the best science and technology in the world to solve the grandest problems that we have in humankind. We use the best technologies available to us – the best tools, the most sophisticated data and insights and resources – to tackle those challenges, such as sustainable agriculture, expanding the human lifespan, tackling disease and beating cancer. Growing stuff out of nothing to feed a nutritious diet to billions of people is not a trivial process.”

Gene editing is a technique that precisely alters the genome of an organism to make beneficial changes. This new technology has the potential to prevent or treat human and animal diseases, combat the impacts of climate change and increase the sustainability of the food system.

The post What is Gene Editing? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

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.

All good questions. We spoke with Dr. Paul Vincelli of the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Kentucky for some answers:

Farmers are using more chemicals on crops. True or False?

Dr. Vincelli: Total pesticide use by farmers in the USA has gone up somewhat in certain crops, and down in others.  Overall, however, pesticide use has been relatively stable over a period of several decades. So, I think we can say this statement is false.

We can definitely say that insecticide use has gone down. Part of the reason is crops that have been genetically modified to resist insects. In the last few years, herbicide use has been trending slightly upward. One factor driving this is the continuing emergence of weeds resistant to certain herbicides.

The organism you target with a herbicide will usually find a way to overcome it. That’s what we’re seeing with glyphosate (the active ingredient in common weed killers).  It’s been a great tool for farmers but it’s not going to be effective indefinitely. Farmers are now having to use other herbicides to kill weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate and that’s why we’ve seen an uptick in herbicide use in recent years.

But even more important than total pesticide usage, it is worth pointing out that pesticides have gotten safer in recent years. This is good for farmers, farm workers, consumers and the environment.

Are the pesticides used for soybeans and corn the same as those used in fruits and vegetables?

Dr. Vincelli: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The “active ingredient” is the component of a pesticidal product that actually controls the pest, whether it be an insect or a weed. A formulated product containing one or more active ingredients is what is actually purchased and used by farmers. A given active ingredient is almost always used on more than one crop. Sometimes a formulated product is sold for use on many crops. However, products for crops like corn and soybeans are usually distinct and sold under an entirely different trade name than those used on fruits and vegetables, even if they contain the same active ingredient.

Should we be concerned about pesticide residues in our food?

Dr. Vincelli: Our regulatory system does an excellent job of protecting our health. I’m not going to tell the moms and dads of America what they should or should not be afraid of, but pesticide residue in food is way down on my list of concerns. Exposure to pesticides in the diet is commonly thousands of times below regulatory permissible amounts.

I do note that certain recent regulatory decisions by the US-EPA have surprised me, as they do not appear to be consistent with a conservative approach to protecting public health. I’m referring to concerns about the insecticide chlorpyrifos. I’ve worked with pesticides for more than three decades and I don’t recall ever seeing a situation where a major analysis from EPA’s scientists was rejected by the EPA administration.

What are the societal benefits of using pesticides?

Dr. Vincelli: Weeds, insects, and infectious diseases can cause losses in yield or quality of the crops society depends on. Proper use of herbicides can greatly reduce the need for tillage in certain crops, which results in less soil erosion, and builds soil organic matter in some environments.

Many people care about the appearance of fruits and vegetables and pesticides help farmers grow the attractive and colorful produce you see at the grocery store. Pesticides can also help cut back on molds that produce natural toxins in food.

It’s in our best interest as consumers to have robust farming communities across the country. Pesticides that control threatening diseases and weeds help farmers remain economically viable. Working people get a paycheck once a month or every two weeks. In a given field, farmers commonly only get one chance each year to make a crop—and therefore, to pay their bills.

What does the future hold for pesticide use?

Dr. Vincelli: We need new approaches to weed control. Some farmers are using cover crops, which may sometimes help with weed control. An example would be a farmer planting grass or a cover-crop mixture in a field after the crop has been harvested. This not only crowds out weeds but also keeps soil from eroding. I’ve also heard talk of robotics that could be mounted on tractors and sense where the weeds are and mechanically whack them or pull them.

I’ve worked with pesticides for 34 years. I’m telling you we can do a lot to reduce the use of pesticides with genetic engineering. Although the acronym GMO sometimes frightens consumers, in fact, genetic engineering holds tremendous promise for reducing pesticide use. There are many, many genetic alternatives to pesticides for controlling insects and diseases. Honestly, this is why the “non-GMO” marketing trend worries me a little—because I believe we are closing off opportunities to produce food with fewer pesticides, which would be good for everyone in the food system: farmers, farm workers, food marketers, consumers, and the environment.

Genetic engineering holds tremendous promise for reducing pesticide use.
Click To Tweet

Weed control presents a greater challenge. Genetics offers very little for reducing farmer dependence on herbicides. There are ways to reduce the “herbicide treadmill,” but they may require that consumers pay quite a bit more for foods.

Words You Need to Know:

• Pesticide – A substance used for destroying insects, plants or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals. Pesticide is an umbrella term for substances that kill weeds, bugs or fungi. Pesticides are used in essentially all farming systems, though some systems rely on them more than others.
• Insecticide – A substance used to kill insects.
• Herbicide – A substance used to kill unwanted plant growth like weeds and grass.
• Pesticide residue – Refers to active ingredients in pesticides that may remain on or in food after they are applied to crops. The maximum allowable levels of these residues in foods are strictly regulated.
• Resistance – Weeds can become resistant when the same herbicide is used repeatedly for several years in a row. Genetic engineering can also be used to develop plants that are resistant to weed killers. This allows a farmer to spray an entire field with herbicide, leaving only the food-producing plants to grow without competing with weeds and grass for sunlight and water. And finally, “resistance” can mean that the plant has been bred or engineered to fight back against insects or diseases.
• Organic – In general, organic standards are designed to allow the use of naturally-occurring substances to control unwanted plant growth and insects while prohibiting or strictly limiting synthetic substances.

Looking for more information? Check out these resources:

Pesticides: A Look at the How and Why

Is It OK to Eat Fruits and Veggies Sprayed with Pesticides?

Are We Being Poisoned By Glyphosate?

Chlorpyrifos: What We Know Today

Glyphosate in Food

The post Are Farmers Using More Pesticides? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

A new pink pineapple, developed through genetic engineering, has been approved by the FDA.

The variety has pink flesh instead of yellow and the developers say it tastes sweeter.

The pink pineapple, made by Del Monte Fresh Produce, simply has some genes toned down to keep the flesh of the fruit pinker and sweeter, the FDA said in its announcement. “(Del Monte) submitted information to the agency to demonstrate that the pink flesh pineapple is as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterparts.”

The new pineapple will produce lower levels of the enzymes that occur in pineapple that convert the pink pigment lycopene to the yellow pigment beta carotene, said the FDA. Lycopene is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink, so it is commonly and safely consumed. Find out more facts about pineapple.

The company will label the product “extra sweet pink flesh pineapple.” It is known as Rosé and will be grown in Costa Rica.

Every genetically-engineered crop goes through extensive testing to ensure it is safe and has to be approved by the FDA, USDA and EPA before they can enter the food supply. The new pineapple joins a growing list of precedent-setting GMO foods. Genetically-engineered salmon received FDA approval last year. GMO apples and potatoes have also been deemed safe for human consumption in recent years.

With the passing of standardized food labeling regulations last summer, these products will need to be labeled as a genetically modified food item at the retail level. USDA is working toward determining how these labels will come to be over the next few years.

The pineapple received FDA approval in December. It is not known when the food will be available for purchase.

This post was originally published Jan. 24, 2017.

The post Pink Pineapple: Everything You Need to Know appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Three new varieties of potatoes that are resistant to late blight have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The potatoes were developed using a disease resistance gene from an Argentine variety of potato that has a natural defense to the disease. Expert Dr. David Douches, director of the Potato Breeding and Genetics Program at Michigan State University, gave us some insight into what this means.

“Late blight is caused by Phytophthora infestans. which is a fungus-like organism, and it is the most costly potato disease in the world. It will infect the foliage and tubers, killing the plants and rotting the tubers,” he said.

Late blight was responsible for the Irish Potato Famine in the 1840s. Potatoes were a significant part of the diet of Irish working classes and the disease decimated farmers’ crops. At least 1 million people died as a result and at least 1 million immigrated to North America, as well as Australia and Europe.

The Irish brought their love of potatoes with them and the starchy vegetables continue to be very popular. The average American eats 114 pounds every year. Potatoes are considered the fourth food staple crop in the world behind corn, rice and wheat. Late blight continues to be a problem, especially in wetter areas, and growers use fungicides to prevent the disease. The new potatoes mean better yields and less use of fungicide on potato fields.

“The farmers benefit with reduced disease risk and potential for a higher quality crop when grown under disease-risk conditions. The farm environment can benefit because of the need for less fungicide applications during the season,” Dr. Douches explained.

Since the varieties, which were developed by J.R. Simplot Co., were determined to be safe by  USDA/APHIS, the FDA and EPA, farmers are expected to plant them this year and shoppers will be able to purchase them. “These potatoes could end up in the fresh market and or the chip-processing market. Consumers should like the improved quality that can come from these potatoes,” Dr. Douches said.

The potatoes are known by the trade name Innate and have another genetic trait. They do not turn brown when exposed to air. Dr. Douches said this is achieved through, “silencing of the polyphenol oxidase gene that reduces the browning of cut or peeled tubers.” This process is similar to the science used to create Arctic Apples.

We asked if these new varieties are considered GMOs – genetically modified organisms. “The potatoes are genetically modified but I refer to them as Biotech 2.0. They contain genes that come from the potato or related species. So the genes are not foreign,” Dr. Douches said.

He described how that process works to protect against late blight. “The potato can defend itself from P. infestans (blight) if the right R-gene or combination of R-genes are expressed in the foliage,” he said. “There is a battle between the plants and P. infestans: for the plants to have R-genes that recognize the pathogen and the pathogen evolving to evade the R-gene recognition.”

Using the latest precision science to solve a very old problem highlights the potential of genetic engineering to help grow better food.

“These are great potatoes to grow and consume and also process into chips and fries. These potatoes should help dispel the negative myths associated with GM foods,” Dr. Douches said.

The post New Potatoes Solve Historic Problem appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Functional Foods
People became less concerned about eliminating foods from their diets and focused on what they should add in 2016. These “functional foods” contribute health benefits to the diet. We looked at some of these claims for foods including sprouted grains, apple cider vinegar, probiotics, turmeric and omega 3.

Simple Ingredients
Food companies focused on using easy-to-understand ingredients in their products in 2016. Many of the changes were sparked by consumers who want more natural ingredients. Best Food Facts asked If I can’t pronounce an ingredient is it bad? and our experts answered.

Genetically Modified Foods
Advances continued to be made in 2016 with new genetically modified foods introduced. We learned about a genetically engineered apple that does not turn brown when sliced and even got to sample it. Other new foods are a specially developed salmon that grows at a quicker rate and a potato that resists bruising and browning.

Antibiotics
Several restaurants and retailers announced plans to source meat from animals that are not treated with antibiotics. The issue raised awareness of how important antibiotics are in human health and protecting the health of animals. We did a four-part video series on antibiotics, looking at the issues surrounding resistance, how to understand food labels and best practices in the kitchen when preparing meat.

Cauliflower is Everywhere
The humble cauliflower became the star of the show in 2016. It was roasted, riced, made into pizza crust, in mac and cheese – you name it, cauliflower did it this year. The advice from the experts at Best Food Facts is Eat Your Veggies, so any way to incorporate more healthy vegetables into daily meals is a welcome addition.

Meal Kit Delivery
This year, meal kit delivery became mainstream. Some big name companies were joined by local start-ups` in offering to deliver the ingredients to cook a meal at home. The service appeals to many because it combines convenience with the goodness of a home cooked meal. Best Food Facts provided some tips on monthly meal planning.

What do you think was the biggest trend of the year? Let us know by voting in the poll!

The post Food Trends of 2016 appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Why are so many grocery stores and other markets so big on non-GMO foods and products if this is a safe way of producing food?

Anne Cundiff:

As a registered dietitian, nutrition expert and retail dietitian, my focus is to provide my clients and customers with sound nutrition advice based on science as well as meeting my clients and customers where they are in their wellness journey. GMO foods are safe for human and animal consumption based on science and research. However, there are some consumers who are concerned with GMOs in their foods and are making the personal choice to not purchase these foods. I feel retailers are responding by providing these consumers with products that meet their specific wellness needs.

We had some follow-up questions for Anne:

How can consumers differentiate between non-GMO and GMO foods at the grocery store? Are non-GMO foods in a separate section, or do consumers need to look at packaging to determine which products are non-GMO?

Anne Cundiff:

There are a couple ways to differentiate between non-GMO and GMO foods at the grocery store. I always recommend looking at packaging of foods and products. It is not required for this designation to be listed, but many companies are adding to the food label because of consumer demand. It will be stated by the nutrition label/nutrition list. There is also the Non-GMO Project, which is a non-profit, providing third-party verification and labeling of non-GMO foods and products. The other way to ensure a food or product is non-GMO is to purchase food labeled as organic. 

As a registered dietitian, what can you tell us about the nutritional quality of GMO versus non-GMO foods?

Anne Cundiff:

Foods with GMOs are perfectly safe and have the same nutrition quality of non-GMO foods. I consume foods with GMOs and confidently purchase, prepare and serve foods with GMOs to my own family. 

_{Image: “NOV 20 – SNAP – Grocery Shopping” by U.S. Department of Agriculture is licensed under CC BY 2.0.}

The post In Your Grocery Aisle: Non-GMO Foods appeared first on Best Food Facts.

To answer this, we reached out to Denneal Jamison-McClung, Associate Director – Biotechnology program at University of California-Davis.

Dr. Jamison-McClung:

There are only a few GM crops found in the fruit and vegetable aisles of the supermarket – squash, papaya and sweet corn. All of the other fruits and vegetables are not “GMO.”

Given what we know about the specific modifications made to GM squash, papaya or sweet corn, it is extremely unlikely that these foods would cause an allergic reaction. Food allergens have common characteristics (specific amino acid sequence, protein size/shape, abundance in the food, etc.) and all GM crops are screened to make sure that their proteins do not share characteristics with known allergens (Goodman, 2008). Specific techniques to assess allergenic potential in new crops, both GM and conventional, include detailed bioinformatic comparisons, immunologic assays and protein analyses (Houston 2013, Picariello 2011).

In the case of GM squash and GM papaya, both were developed because of viral diseases that threatened the crops. This gets a bit sciencey, but bear with me. To address that viral disease, genes that encode viral RNAs were incorporated. When the plant makes these RNAs, it triggers a cellular defense response at the start of infection (RNA homology-dependent gene silencing) that is somewhat like the immune response a vaccinated person would have against a specific disease (Morroni 2008, Collinge, 2010). In any case, neither of these GM crops expresses a GM protein with allergenic properties.

Sweet corn is engineered to express Bt protein in order to resist insect herbivores. Bt protein is safe for human consumption and is widely used by organic farmers as a spray. Bt proteins are non-allergenic, with the protein breaking down in our stomach acid within ~30 seconds (Adel-Patient 2011, Fonseca 2012).

It does sound like this reader may have a food allergy. My suspicion is that a common food allergen, such as egg in the salad dressing, may have been the cause of the reaction. The eight most common food allergens are milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat (Mayo Clinic). I became allergic to eggs in adulthood, which was a surprise, as they were a significant part of my diet growing up. Unfortunately for me, eggs are found in all mayonnaise-based salad dressings and many other processed foods, making them difficult to avoid. People experiencing food allergy reactions, such as hives and rash, should follow up with a physician to receive testing for a panel of common food allergens. It is not possible for a medical provider to visually inspect a rash and pinpoint a specific allergen that caused the reaction – immunological tests, such as an IgE serum test, must be performed.

_References:

• _{Adel-Patient 2011 – Immunological and Metabolomic Impacts of Administration of Cry1Ab Protein and MON 810 Maize in Mouse}
• _{Collinge 2010 – Engineering Pathogen Resistance in Crop Plants: Current Trends and Future Prospects}
• _{Goodman 2008 – Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops – what makes sense?}
• _{Fonseca 2012 – Characterization of maize allergens – MON810 vs. its non-transgenic counterpart}
• _{Houston 2013 – Quantitation of Soybean Allergens Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry}
• _{Morroni 2008 – Twenty Years of Transgenic Plants Resistant to Cucumber mosaic virus}
• _{Picariello 2011 – The frontiers of mass spectrometry-based techniques in food allergenomics}

_{“Canola Bokeh” by Leigh Schilling is licensed under CC BY.}

The post Could GMOs Be the Cause of an Allergic Reaction? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Barbara Klein, PhD – Professor Emerita of Foods & Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

My food choices are based on a variety of criteria, not just whether a product is made (or not made) from GMO ingredients or was grown organically. What is available and looks good in my supermarket or farmer’s market, what my family likes to eat, what fits in our healthful diet, what it costs—all of these are factors in food choices. If organically grown chickens are available (usually at my local farmers’ market or food coop), I choose those because they usually taste really good. If organic vegetables cost twice or three times conventionally grown and don’t look any better, then I choose conventional. The preponderance of evidence does not lead me to believe that GMOs have any negative health effects.

As for GMOs versus organic vegetables and fruits, we have to recognize that essentially all of the produce we buy today has been genetically modified over the centuries. Farmers have been modifying plants’ genes to change a wild plant into a food plant, and increase its yield, nutritional value and hopefully its eating quality. It is more important to eat a healthful diet, one that meets our nutritional needs and our taste preferences, than to pick and choose on the basis of GMO or organic.

It is more important to eat a healthful diet than to pick and choose on the basis of GMO or organic.
Click To Tweet

Ethan Bergman, PhD, RD, CD, FADA – Current President of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Professor of Food Science & Nutrition and Associate Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies at Central Washington University

When it comes to organically grown foods, research is inconclusive on whether organics are more or less nutritious than foods that are conventionally grown, so the choice is up to each individual. We certainly don’t want to see a situation where people don’t eat fruits and vegetables because they can’t afford an exclusively organic diet. If your goal is to limit your exposure to pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and hormones, you may want to look at food labels for organic.

For anyone who wants to eat healthfully or help prevent or manage a chronic disease such as diabetes, as a registered dietitian I recommend maximizing the overall quality of your diet by eating fruits and vegetables, fish, nuts, seeds and beans. You can’t go wrong eating these foods – whether they are organically produced or not.

Regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) foods, I support the viewpoint of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The Academy does not currently have a position on issues pertaining to GMOs or labeling foods that are genetically modified or enhanced. All of the relevant science is being extensively analyzed and the Academy expects to issue an official position paper that will address GMO and GE foods in 2013. Until then, as president of the Academy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on these products.

Do you have a food question for the experts? Submit a question here.

• *NOTE: Dr. Klein passed away in February 2015. We were saddened to learn of her passing.

The post What Do Food Experts Eat? Organic or GMO Foods? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

In response to the GM 101 video:

Comment from YouTube User “GCN3030“: “GM crops do not increase yield. In fact it may be they may even cause crop yield to DECLINE. A US Department of Agriculture report confirmed the poor yield performance of GM crops, saying, ‘GE [genetically engineered] crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease…'”

Response from Dr. Sally Mackenzie:

It is important to remember that GM is not a catch-all term, and all GM crops are not the same. When we talk about documented increases in yield, these data are applied to Roundup® technologies and BT technologies. In the case of Roundup Ready (herbicide tolerance), the observed yield increases come by virtue of the fact that growers can control weeds more economically and effectively. Without the competition of weeds for nutrients, water and sunlight, the crop grows more healthy, and production has been shown to be higher. This is quite logical, and not unlike what you would see in your own home garden if you are diligent in keeping the weeds in check. These data are supported by what growers in the Midwest see every year, which is why these agricultural systems are so popular with farmers.

With BT (insect tolerance) technology, two benefits come in the form of enhanced yield.

1. The first is that insect damage to the plant is reduced, which means a greater yield of higher quality (ie. undamaged) product.
2. But, in addition, it turns out that the enhanced resistance to insect pests has the added benefit of reducing the pathogenic fungi that often accompany those insects.

Therefore, post-harvest grain coming from BT engineering has higher storage life with less decay. This also bolsters final yield as an unexpected bonus. Again, this is quite logical. If you prevent insect damage to your crop, more of the crop is harvested, and it comes with less damage, allowing for enhanced post-harvest quality. If these gains were not authentic, farmers would not be such strong proponents of the technology.

Comment from YouTube User “GCN3030“: “Roundup Ready brand GM crops are designed so that you can INCREASE the use of herbicides. They have not reduced herbicide use at all. As far as glyphosate being “relatively” benign, that is deliberately misleading. That stuff is EXTREMELY toxic. As little as 10 parts per million can kill fish.”

Response from Dr. Sally Mackenzie:

Roundup Ready technology is designed to lower farmer inputs ($) in crop production. Herbicides cost the grower money to apply, so Roundup Ready is designed so that the grower can reduce the number of applications, and can apply post-emergence of his crop without damage to the crop. This means fewer applications and less labor in physical weeding of the field. The biodegradable nature of glyphosate, and its very specific targeting of an enzyme involved in amino acid biosynthesis, makes it a much less dangerous herbicide than some of the others used in past agricultural practices. But don’t take my word for it; the structure and target of glyphosate are very well-documented and can be found with a simply Google/Wikipedia search. GM technology has nothing to do with verifying the safety or toxicity levels of glyphosate. It goes without saying that all herbicides likely have some level of toxicity to organisms other than plants and we would all be better off if growers were given the opportunity to produce more product with fewer applications of ANY herbicide. GM technologies have been developed to allow the grower to use herbicides other than glyphosate as well, like Dicamba. The message of the videos is not to proclaim the inherent safety of herbicides, but the inherent safety of the GM technologies in crops.

Comment from YouTube User “GCN3030“: “How would one go about documenting a health issue caused by GM crops? If I get a health problem like say a tumor that is similar to those experienced by the GM fed animals in the studies that have been done, how will I know whether GM crops that I unknowingly consumed a decade ago caused my problem? Sub-acute long term problems would be very difficult to document particularly when so many people do not even realize that there are many animal studies that have indicated negative effects.”

Response from Dr. Sally Mackenzie:

This question is relevant to all of the foods we eat. How do we know milk is good for us? Or the meat we eat? Should we be adding fructose corn syrup to our foods? What about eating wheat products? To some sector of the human population, any one of these foods can be damaging to health. And so we rely on regulatory bodies to establish certain testing procedures to ensure what our society considers an appropriate level of safety. With GM crops, the bar is held considerably higher than for any of the foods I mention above. Animal feed testing, DNA sequencing, antigenicity testing are all essential in the testing of a GM product, but these tests are not required for approval of our other foods. As a consequence, we have had significantly greater problems with other parts of our food production systems, including organic production, and no documented problems with GM foods. Presumably, this high level of testing has been effective. Nothing can be guaranteed 100% safe, but I marvel at the high level of concern shown to GM crops, with their rigorous testing, by consumers who recognize and accept that every other part of their food production system has inherent risks.

Comments from YouTube Users:

“GCN3030“: “Why don’t you address people’s real concerns based on the thousands of internal corporate animal studies that were only released after a lawsuit in 1999 because that showed all sorts of different negative effects? Why is there no discussion of the fact that the FDA’s own scientists voiced their concern over the results they saw in these studies? Why no mention of the recent results of the French study which used a larger sample size and studied the rats for their entire life? Very one sided.”

“Octavio Ayala“: “Séralini et al 2012. “…Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize from 11% in the diet cultivated with or without roundup and roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in the water) were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. this difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.”

Response from Dr. Sally Mackenzie:

Scientists are not equipped to deal with anecdotal stories; scientists deal with data generated from well-designed and controlled studies. The study you cite by the French investigator, Gilles-Eric Seralini, that was published in September of this year has a number of problems that make interpretation of his findings very difficult. For example, he uses a specific strain of rats, the albino Sprague-Dawley rat, that has been specifically bred to produce mammary tumors, especially if their diet is not carefully controlled. The investigators never tell you that they saw the same sorts of tumors on their control rats, and they report that they saw more tumors on the diet with less GM grain and lower tumor production on the rats fed higher GM grain. Does this mean that GM grain in higher doses reduces tumor formation? These rats were not bred to be used in longer-term studies, so it is difficult to know how long they should live, and the very small size of the control group (only 20 rats) makes it very difficult to determine whether the rats fed GM were any better or worse off than the control sample. Also, it is worth noting that Seralini cites only studies from his own lab; there appears to be no supporting literature outside of his lab to substantiate these claims. All of these factors leave the scientific community quite dubious about his claims.

These types of experiments are often designed to be misleading. Notice that the hundreds of thousands of studies by recognized scientific experts (many National Academy of Science members) demonstrating the safety of GM products receive absolutely no air time compared to the huge amount of press garnered by Seralini’s one, questionable study using a highly mutagenic rat strain.

Comment from YouTube User “1dnc4mun“: “Yes, there is strong evidence showing that what they say is true. What they DON’T tell us is MUCH MUCH WORSE. Epigenetic research is showing that human/ bacterial DNA can absorb the genetically altered information and thus produce pesticides. Also, CROSS POLLINATION. When GMO cross pollinates to naturally grown crops, the NGC’s produce a mutation with the GMO genetic information. This destroys the natural crops and will eventually force all farmers to grow GMO crops- thus Monsanto will rule.”

Response from Dr. Cecilia Chi-Ham:

“Horizontal Gene Transfer, the movement of genetic information across unrelated species is known to occur- albeit at a very low frequency. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the expression of a transgene from a GM crop in humans. The BT protein has been shown to be safe to humans and thus used in all farming- organic, conventional and GM.

“With regards to cross-pollination, GM and conventional crops behave the same. What’s important to note is that DNA from a GM crop is not any more dangerous than from a conventionallly-bred crop. Moreover, a number of conventionally-bred crops are produced by randomly mutating its DNA. In contrast, GM crops use precise breeding to introduce a new trait.”

_{Image: “In Focus/Out of Focus” by Susanne Nilsson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.}

The post Genetically-Modified Foods: More Questions Answered appeared first on Best Food Facts.