Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Running Head: GMF IS SAFE

GMF is safe
Tianqi Zhao
Purdue University
ENGL 106I
12/08/2014

GMF IS SAFE

GMF is Safe
I still remember my most favorite vegetable was tomato when I was four years old. There
were only big tomato in the market at that time. About five years later, my family moved to
Qingdao, a city in Shandong Province. I found a new kind of tomato in supermarket, it smaller
than the original one and crispier, some sweet taste in mouth after ate it. Thus I indeed loved this
new cate. I did not know this was not a natural species until I learned genetically modified food
(GMF) in primary high school. GMF is a kind of new food which be transferred gene from
natural organisms to get the specific characters. I had never queried the safety of GMF until three
years ago some newspapers published the negative information about GMF. Because GMF
related to our health, I decided to find out whether the GMF is safety. Then I realized my worry
was redundantly. The GMF is safe.
First of all, I find an article in < The Washington Post >. In this paper, the author lists 5
points that we need to accept GMF. I pick out a paragraph which can prove the security of GMF
ideally. Billions of subjects eat GMOs almost exclusively: livestock. Researchers from the
University of California at Davis looked at health data on more than 100 billion animals and
found no ill effects in fact, no effects at all attributable to a switch from non-GMO feed to
GMO. (Haspel, T. (2014)) (4th paragraph) In this sentence, he gives us a realistic instance. The
agriculture department of University of California at Davis is top 5 in United States. Thus the
data from UC Davis is convincing. The most important point is the number of data- more than
100 billion. Its amazing that we cannot find one example against the safety of GMF! In
summary, Haspel claimed that research data shows GMF has no negative influence to
experimental animals.

GMF IS SAFE

Recently, many states of United States are fighting on labeling GMF. But Haspel
thinks labeling is unnecessary because GMOs are safe. There is his explanation: If GMOs were
dangerous, the FDA wouldnt label them, it would ban them. The items on our food labels run
the gamut and include substances that pose a risk to some people (peanuts), substances that
public health authorities recommend we should all limit (salt) and lots of ingredients with no
health implications at all. There are indications of how a product is made (orange juice from
concentrate) and where it comes from (country of origin). Some vitamins and nutrients are listed,
others arent. There is no grand unifying theory of what goes on a label. Its all case-by-case.
(Haspel, T. (2014)) (6th paragraph)FDA (U.S Food Administration) does not need to label GMF.
Because current regulations have not stipulate everything on the label. Like some people have
allergy to peanuts or how many salt added to food. Although there are a large amount of
information on the label, like how did the products been produced and the producing area, there
is no explicit principle of label. Thus FDA does not need to label GMF.
The attracting point for me is his reverse thinking. When most people are arguing
whether labeling GMF label on the GM products, the author are thinking the reason why FDA
have not labeled the label. I have the same idea with him. FDA would prohibit GMF if it does
harmful to human rather than focus on whether label GMF. The current label has include
integrated information. Thus we have no reason to ask FDA to build a new label regulation. It is
a powerful standpoint to certify the safety of GMF.
Here is an article which tests 55 patients who allergic to food by testing combination of
IgE antibody with Cry3Bb1. IgE combine with Cry3Bb1 specifically means that GMF is
harmful to human. Reversely, GMF has no bad affect to human. (1.Cry3Bb1: An insecticidal
protein produced by Bacillus thuringiensis that kills corn rootworm larvae. 2. IgE:

GMF IS SAFE

Immunoglobulin E is a class of antibody that has been found only in mammals. It exists in blood.
The concentration of IgE will increasing if human touch or eat something they allergic to. 3.
MON863: a kind of GM corn invented by Monsanto Company) In conclusion, IgE antibodies
from corn allergy patients and patients with various food allergies did not bind specifically to
recombinant Cry3Bb1. The IgE antibodies from the corn allergy patients yielded the same
binding profiles in relation to extracts of MON863 and of non-GM corn. MON863 is as safe as
non-GM corn from the standpoint of no specific binding between IgE antibodies and
recombinant Cry3Bb1. (Osamu, N. (2010)) (P.306-311) The IgE antibodies do not combine
with Cry3Bb1 especially. The reaction from corn allergy patients to GM corn and non-GM corn
is the same. It indicates that GM corn is as safe as non-GM corn.
This is a research paper about GMF in Japan. Food allergy is an important indicator to
show the safety of GMF. Cry3Bb1 protein appears in GMF and some people may react allergy to
Cry3Bb1. MON863 is a representativeness GMF and it can represent mostly GMF. The research
tests that the reactions of corn allergy patients to GM corn and non GMF are same. Thus this is a
precise material to prove the safety of GMF.
Here is another powerful argument to prove the safety of GMF: Every major
international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studiesin some
cases numbering in the hundredsin coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as
safe as or safer than conventional or organic foods.(Entine, J. (2014))(Countdown third
paragraph) Several primary institutions researching on GMF in the world summery that GMF as
same as the non GMF in safety after they analyzed great number of objects. I think that the
main point in this citation is major international science institutions in the world. Because they
have authority in science domain. This citation confirm the safety of GMF.

GMF IS SAFE

In the same article, Entine also states that The papers conclusion is unequivocal: there
is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the publics
health. The reason for the publics distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false
debates. (Entine, J. (2014))(The last paragraph) He means that we cannot find the definite
evidences to prove GMF may cause unique dangerous to human and environment. Some people
do not trust in GMF due to their mentalities and the influence of public opinions. There was two
factories made nickel from nickel ore in our city Qingdao (in Shandong province, China). The
newer factory used a new method to subtracted nickel, this method was more efficiency, more
environment protect and more safe than the old factorys method. But the old factory use the
source of newspaper to spread rumors that the new one was the primary contributor to haze. The
new factory closed end. Thus I really believe some unwarrantable competition in business to
slander GMF.
Some people may learned on the biology class that the modified gene may drift away by
wind through spore and cause gene pollution. And this new, strange gene may flowed into
human by respiratory system. But background is that the gene been put in is a kind of natural
gene. Thus if we do not modified this gene to crop, it can transfer to everywhere by its own spore
in the same way. Moreover, there might inaccurate duplication during gene transcription. No
report shows us the wrong duplication gene cause dangerous to human until now. Commissioner
Anne Glover also said, There is no substantial case of any adverse impact on human health,
animal health or environmental health, so thats pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident
in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.
(Anne, G. (2012) Page.11-2)She shows us that human eating GMF has no negative affect reports,
thus GMF is as safe as traditional non-GMF.

GMF IS SAFE

The editors at Nature Biotechnology argue that evidence is not the problem. The issue is
that, so far, people have no reason to believe GM foods are being created for their benefit.
(White. M (2013) Page75-6) some people does do not believe the safety of GMF now because
they do not know what benefit GMF can give them. Let me show you what you can get from
GMF. First of all, farmers growing GM cotton easier than growing traditional cotton. Before
GM-cotton invented, cotton bollworm was the biggest trouble to cotton growing. Especially
between 1994 and 1996, cotton bollworm reducing output of Heilongjiang and Jilin Province
even to no output. Then the government imported insect-resistant cotton to solve this disaster.
Scientists moved insect-resistant gene from special bacteria to cotton. When cotton bollworm
eating GM cotton, the modified gene can product protein which can prevent digestion of insect
and make them die due to hunger. Farmer easier than before cause they do not need to use
pesticide on insect-resistant cotton. It protects our health indirectly. Secondly, we can get more
nutrition from GMF than traditional food. According to statistics, about six hundred and seventy
thousand children under five years old died due to lacking of Vitamin A. Syngenta Company add
beta carotene to rice. The beta carotene can be converted to Vitamin A by our digestive system.
Not only GMF has not negative affect to us, but also it can save millions childrens life.
Although mostly people regard GMF as safety food, some people hold the opposite view:
Participants said that potential consequences of GMO contamination include loss of organic
certification and markets, and could be very costly to them. Although none of the participants
had yet lost certification due to GMO contamination, many were aware of farmers whose crops
had been rejected by buyers due to GMO contamination. Members thought that hidden
corollaries of GMFs gene pollution are forfeiting organic certification and markets. Some
members products had been rejected due to gene pollution of GMF, albeit their certification had

GMF IS SAFE

not been confiscated. Gene pollution of GMF does exist. However, the gene which be modified
existed in the nature since lots of years ago. Gene pollution is a normal phenomenon in natural
world. Thus gene pollution is not a reason which influence the health of human.
As more and more GMF used as fodder for livestock, peoples visions assemble to GMlivestock. But we need not worry about this. No study has revealed any differences in the
nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein
are normal components of the diet that are digested. (Entine, J. (2014)) (P. 1) (GE is a kind of
GMF.) He tells us that the nutrition of GM-animal and non GM-animal is same because
according the data, scientists cannot find out any abnormal product from our digestion. Thus we
can overturn this incorrect hypothesis.
He also states that We now have a large set of data, both experimental and observational,
showing that genetically modified feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed.
There does not appear to be any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there
could be any health effect on humans who eat those animals. (Entine, J. (2014)) (P. 2) The
GMF has no risk to animal thus it impossible make any hazards to human. We need to believe
the data from experiments rather than guess without any reasons and get needlessly panic.
In this paper, this first reference proves that GMF has no harmful to livestock. The
second reference means that we do not need to label the GMF because it is safe, thus we do not
need to separate it even if it has same safety level as normal crops. And Osamu verified GMF is
safe through the experiment of Cry3Bb1. Although some people still cannot accept GMF or have
some negative suspensions to GMF, it is due to lies in psychology, politics and false debates. In
conclusion, GMF is safe to us.

GMF IS SAFE

References

Anne, G. (2012). GM food production increasing. AG professional. Retrieved from


http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/GM-food-production-increasing169514076.html

Entine, J. (2014). 2000 Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe to Eat and Environmentally ... Retrieved
October 31, 2014. From http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debateabout-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
Entine, J. (2014). The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal
Study. Forbes. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-overthanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
Hanson, J. Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C., & Kremen, A. (2004). Risk and risk
management in organic agriculture: views of organic farmers. Renewable agriculture and
food systems, 19(04), 218-227.
Haspel, T. (2014). The GMO Debate: 5 Things to Stop Arguing. The Washington Post. Retrieved
October 31, 2014, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-37328805.html?
Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., Noteborn, H. P. J. M. and Kok, E. J. (2001), Assessment of the food
safety issues related to genetically modified foods. The Plant Journal, 27: 503528.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x
Osamu, N. (2010) Division of Novel Food and Immunochemistry, National Institute of Health
Sciences. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

GMF IS SAFE

White. M (2013). The Scientific Debate About GM Foods Is Over: Theyre Safe. Retrieved from
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyresafe-66711/