What are dangers of genetically modified foods to humans, animals and the environment?

Well if the genetically modified item has developed anything new that is harmful then we will not be able to stop it. What do we know will com out of this gene and that gene coming together, not much until we experiment. But only through experimenting can we spot changes so we do not know all the harmful things that might come out genetically modified stuff. A new disease or pest could grow out of it with a DNA structure we don’t know of. As a whole it is good for our health since it has extra vitamins and healthy substances in it. So it would help us. It shouldn’t damage the environment too much since it organic and can break down and go back into the earth.

There are no known dangers of genetically modified foods both to humans, animals and the environment. In fact a report the World Health Organization (WHO) released in June 25 indicated that GM food can benefit human beings and the environment (http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2181&language=1). Such other reputable organizations as the World Food Program and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have declared that GM food pose no health risk to consumers.
The following websites shed more light on benefits of genetically modified foods:
http://www.gmoafrica.org/
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/

GMO’s lack genetic diversity, making them more susceptible to parasitism and disease. The widespread use of GMO’s therefore could lead to huge die offs of crops if a bacteria or parasite comes along that can kill this GMO. GMO’s also tend to be highly competitve, and if they expand beyond human control, they can lead to the extinction of plants and animals native to the local environment.

I don’t really care if they are dangerous or not. What I’m concerned with is the fact that they are not required to label it. All I ask is that food products should have label specifying if it does or not does not contain GMO. Then we can have a choice whever we want to buy it or not.

If the scientists and corporations are confident that it doesn’t cause harm, fine. But why did they draw the line at letting the consumer know? What are they afraid of?

Everything is taken on a case by case basis. The goal is to be sure that one doesn’t ingest something that is toxic or has unbalanced/ compromised nutrition. There is a huge fear factor because this is so knew but it seems to be a fear generated by the uneducated vocal minority. It seems an unbased fear. When you get hungry and we have ruined what agriculture is left, you will eat the blue apples and like them.

This is a difficult question to answer because it asks about a method for generating genetic differences, but ignores the specific genetic traits being produced. As with many things in life, the details are what matter. GM foods are many and varied and their uses are still being developed. Some genes being proposed for use have some very distinct potential problems and some are rather less likely to be an issue. There are few potential hazards that are innate to the GM process, so it is really not useful in most cases to lump them all together.

1. There is nothing in the GM process that limits genetic diversity, but if a particular cultivar becomes more widely grown than any other because its trait is of value, this would need to be considered. As it is, many of the major crops have only a small number of cultivars anyway, and while this has hazards it is not a specific hazard made better or worse by the GM process.

2. Invasiveness could be an issue if the trait introduced made the plant highly resistant to pests, or able to outgrow weeds or something. Invasiveness has been a problem with many plants imported for ornamental use in gardens, but only a few issues for crop plants are known. There is some concern that transfer of pest resistance genes from crops to related weed species could generate ‘superweeds’ but few clear examples of this are known.

3. Use of specific herbicides is actually reduced with GM crops and relatively safe herbicides like glyphosate have replaced very dangerous ones like 2,4-D. Of course, all hebicides are regulated in use, so the comment ‘this allows them to use as much Roundup as they want to use’ is just without basis in fact. In any event, the use of safe growing methods needs careful regulation – this is not specific for GM’s verses traditional breeding varieties.

4. It is indeed possible that someone could have an alergy to a specific protein and that a GM plant having that protein could be an issue. The most cited example of that was with the Brazil nut protein, but that was never released and ended up helping discover the problem protein – thus being of great benefit to people with this allergy. Nevertheless, this needs to be carefully watched. However, traditional breeding has produced things like toxic potatoes that sent dozens of people to the hospital before it was discovered that insects were not the only ‘pests’ controlled by the high toxin levels.

5. The ethics and intellectual property issues can very real, but traditional breeding has many of the same ‘Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values’ issues and the production of GM crops like yellow rice is of benefit to the worlds poorest peoples, so the situation is complex.

I hope this helps a bit.

Safety
-Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity

Access and Intellectual Property
-Domination of world food production by a few companies
-Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
-iopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources

Ethics
-Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
-Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
-Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa

Stress for animal
-Labeling
-Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
-Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts

Society
-New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

Deaths and Near-Deaths

Recorded Deaths from GM In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).
Near-deaths from Allergic Reactions In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into apoplectic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Animal tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. “The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate,” writes Marion Nestle, head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. About 25% of Americans have adverse reactions to foods. 8% of children and 2% of adults have food allergies as tested by blood immunoglobins.

Cancer and Other Degenerative Ailments
Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto’s rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a
potent chemical hormone, is linked to 4-5% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it “induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells.” Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA’s own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% – a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN’s Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US. Part of the reason may be that the policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine…. and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk – and by a factor of 1 or 10,0 percent. Michael Taylor, Esq. was the executive assistant to the director of the FDA. He drafted the Delaney Amendment that allowed for the minimizing of cancer risk and was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently again became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA. Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens – bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto’s Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola. Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.

Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates – especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic– but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns – such as with cancer. Cancer is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment – including in the air, water, and food we take in. There are unimaginably many combinations for the 1,0 or so chemicals released into the environment. The real impact cannot be revealed by a handful of stringent experiments that isolate just a few controlled factors or chemicals at a time. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that a random combination of chemicals (mostly pesticides) caused a 10 times more cancer than the sum of the individual chemicals indicated in separate tests. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order – with genetic mutations – that such non-traceable influences can also cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates – where cells duplicate out of control. If nothing else, this should make us extremely cautious. In the US in the year 19 cancer affected approximately 1 out 11 individuals. It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men, and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. These rates relentlessly shot upward throughout the twentieth century.

Viral and Bacterial Illness
Superviruses Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses – and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering – in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of “pararetrovirus” or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers. In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks, the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes – as evidence of gene mixing. This is significant because genes that cause diseases are often crippled to make the end product “safe.” Results of this kind led the US Department of Agriculture to hold a meeting in October of 1997 to discuss the risks and dangers of gene mixing and superviruses, but no regulatory action was taken.

Antibiotic Threat – Via Milk Cows injected with rBGH have a much higher level of udder infections and require more antibiotics. This leaves unacceptable levels of antibiotic residues in the milk. Scientists have warned of public health hazards due to growing antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic Threat – Via Plants Much of genetic implantation uses a marker to track where the gene goes into the cell. GM maize plants use an ampicillin resistant gene. In 1998, the British Royal Society called for the banning of
this marker as it threatens a vital antibiotic’s use. The resistant qualities of GM bacteria in food can be transferred to other bacteria in the environment and throughout the human body.

Resurgence of Infectious Diseases The Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease journal reported in 1998 that gene technology may be implicated in the resurgence of infectious diseases. This occurs in multiple ways. There is growing resistance to antibiotics misused in bioengineering, the formation of new and unknown viral strains, and the lowering of immunity through diets of processed and altered foods. There is also the horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA among bacteria. Several studies have shown bacteria of the mouth, pharynx and intestines can take up the transgenic DNA in the feed of animals, which in turn can be passed on to humans. This threatens the hallmark accomplishment of the twentieth century – the reduction in infectious diseases that critically helped the doubling of life expectancy.

Allergies

Increased Food Allergies The loss of biodiversity in our food supply has grown in parallel with the increase in food allergies. This can be explained as follows. The human body is not a machine-like “something” that can be fed
assembly line, carbon copy foods. We eat for nourishment and vitality. What is alive interacts or changes with its environment. Unnatural sameness – required

for patenting of genetic foods – are “dead” qualities. Frequently foods we eat and crave are precisely those testing positive for food allergies. Cells in our body recognize this lack of vitality, producing antibodies and white cells in response. This is analogous to our brain’s cells recognizing and rejecting mechanically repeated thoughts – or thinking “like a broken record.” Intuitively

our body cells and the overall immune system seems to reject excess homogeneity.

Birth Defects, Toxicity, and Lowered Nutrition
Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans As we ingest transgenic human/ animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. We know that rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans.

Interior Toxins “Pesticidal foods” have genes that produce a toxic pesticide inside the food’s cells. This represents the first time “cell-interior toxicity” is being sold for human consumption. There is little knowledge of the potential long-term health impacts.
Lowered Nutrition A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Dr. Marc Lappe, 1999) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients – especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer. In another study of GM Vica Faba, a bean in the same family as soy, there was also an increase in estrogen levels, what raises health issues – especially in infant soy formulas. Milk from cows with rBGH contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Monsanto’s analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed the GM-line contained 28% more Kunitz-trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen.

Source(s):
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

I just wrote a paper on this subject for my World Hunger class. The long term dangers are unknown. In the US, these food items aren’t labeled, so there is no way of tracking problems. If people don’t know they are eating modified soybeans, how can they blame their health problems on the soybeans, right? And as far as the environment is concerned, genetically modified alfalfa, called Roundup Ready Alfalfa allows the farmer to spray Roundup right next to or in his field with out the crop being damaged. Well this allows them to use as much Roundup as they want to use. Roundup is very dangerous and should be used in limited amounts, if it is used at all. And now they get t use as much as they want to? That’s awful for the environment.
ope this helps you understand the GMO (genetically modified organism) that are everywhere around us better.

There is no dangers to genetically modified (GM) foods presently, but the long term effects are still unknown. (you will need a pool of people to eat GM foods continuously for a long time before you can come out with the stats.)

By doing genetic modification to the food source, farmers are actually introducing better genes into the DNA, so that the food source, be it plants or animals, are more resistant to disease, higher production, and better quality.

However, think about it. Farmers in the long past also does selection planting, meaning to say, they select the best seeds of a tree to make new plants for fruits, they mate the best cow and bull to attempt to produce excellent offsprings. Isn’t this genetic modification in a way?