There is data which shows that GMO crops require more pesticides, and in the past 15 years, the over-reliance on GMO crops has resulted in the rise of superweeds and superbugs.
I personally feel until such human studies are done, that we should all be extremely wary of GMO foods. The FDA never required health studies or safety testing of these genetically engineered foods for human consumption. There have been numerous issues with livestock fed GMO feed, too many issues to list.
In California on the ballot November, 2012 is Prop. 37 which requires labeling of all GMO foods sold in retail outlets such as grocery stores to be labeled if it is produced via genetic engineering.
Opinion # 2Neither are there any studies, long- or short-term, proving that genetically-engineered (GE) foods are NOT safe. GE foods are the most intensively studied and understood group of plants in the world, and, to date, not one scientifically-based, peer-reviewed (translation:"valid") study has ever shown a harmful effect. It's all conjecture and "what-if" scenarios, commonly referred to as "pseudo-science." It's true that some corn and other produce contains Bt proteins which are toxic to Lepidopteran insects. And yet the exact same thing is approved for organic food production. "Superweeds and superbugs" is an interesting though humorous concept. The basic principle is otherwise called pesticide resistance development in the target species, and would occur regardless of the presence of GE plants. It's been happening since the introduction of pesticides. It's just "survival of the fittest" at work.
The idea that the FDA never required any studies of health and safety testing simply displays a lack of knowledge on the subject. They are required by law to demand proof of anything in the food which would make it nutritionally any different, or would put any kind of allergenic property to it. The kinds of things which are being genetically added to GE plants are still basically just proteins and carbohydrates which most humans have no difficulty digesting. Again, the livestock feed issues quoted above have not been verified using any valid scientific method.
It's also true that Californians have the choice this November to vote on whether GE foods should be labeled as such. There are two outcomes to this proposition should it pass: 1) GE foods will have to be kept separate, increasing costs to the consumer while providing no measurable benefit which does not already exist. (Consumers already have the choice to purchase organic foods.) 2) GE crops will in essence be condemned without a fair trial, resulting in higher food costs for all of us.
In short, you have a choice. You can choose to follow the over 25 Nobel Prize winners, 3,400 prominent scientists, the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Agriculture, the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the American Medical Association who all have expressed their support for the advantages of biotech crops and safety of genetically modified foods as a "powerful and safe" way to improve agriculture and the environment. Or you can follow the techno-phobe opposition back to the Stone Age.
kupal
A modified sport is a sport derived from another sport. Eg. rugby and basketball are both sports that were derived from Football.
Animals are regularly being fed genetically modified food. At this point in time, laboratory tests are unable to detect any different in food products derived from animals that have consumed GMO food and those that have not.
I would say, specially modified proteins.
Genetically, yes. Korean were derived from Chinese.
Maltodextrin can be derived from gluten based grains. It is generally recommended that those with celiac disease avoid maltodextrin. In the US, it is most often derived from genetically modified corn. Although corn is considered to be a safe grain for those with gluten sensitivity, research has shown that people with celiac disease also react to corn (see attached reference). Please see the related link below.
allergic reaction comes from a specific substance rejected by the body. usually GM crops doesn't contain different substances constituent from the wild type crops. because if it does, surely the inspector organization won't allow it to be consumed by human.
That cell is a clone of the first. This happens all the time in your body.
If Frito Lay cannot boldly say "we do not use GMO corn in any of our products" then they are obviously using GMO corn in at least some, if not all of their products.
Pryor is a variant of Prior. It's derived from the Latin 'prior' meaning 'superior'.
GMO: genetically modified organisms. Genetically Modified Organisms are created by taking Genetic Material from 2 different sources and combining them into one molecule. They're created by taking certain traits from the organism they came from and supposedly make something else better. The first patented GMO was created to help clean up oil spills.
Chemical, genetically modified, synthetic and toxic influences, inputs, methods and procedures appear on the list of resources that would not be used on organic farms. Organic farm production grows edible, ornamental, wildflowering and woody crops and raises livestock and poultry through Mother Nature-friendly methods whose inputs and outputs are non-chemical, non-genetically modified, non-synthetic and non-toxic. It relies upon animal or plant matter-derived botanical pesticides, buffer zones, horticultural oils, insecticidal soaps, natural enemies and row covers in everything from preparing the soil through marketing the product.
The word "opulent" in definitions means "rich or superior in quality". It was derived from Ops, the Greek Goddess of Fertility and Abundance.