GMOs
Are genetically modified organisms safe for humans?
The Issue
As people have be told that many foods consumed by the public have been genetically modified to make for better crops, they have begun to question whether the genetically-altered foods are worth the potential health risks. However, as the technology advances, GMOs could be the answer to two of the world’s major problems — starvation and malnutrition.
— Lea Thali, Nia Creator
Most Popular Question
-
This Question: 5GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By Users[...] the scientific consensus is that GMOs do not pose risks to our health or the environment that are any different from the risks posed by the non-GM crops [...].
-
Two European Commission reports covering 25 years’ worth of research on the effects of GM crops on health and the environment have shown no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks than conventional plants and organisms...
-
Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies [...] in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.
-
Even the French Supreme Court threw out France’s ban on a GMO because the French government couldn’t produce any credible evidence that GMOs were a threat to the environment or human health
GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersAs scientists, physicians, academics, and experts [...], we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is “over”. -
Most Divisive Question
-
This Question: 2GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By UsersOver the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide [...] have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersTo purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them [...] Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.
Remaining Questions
-
This Question: 3GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By UsersThese data bring into caution the widely held assumption that organic pesticides are more environmentally benign than synthetic ones. All pesticides must be evaluated using an empirically-based risk assessment, because generalizations based on chemical origin do not hold true in all cases.GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By Users[T]he spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.
-
This Question: 1GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By UsersThe Food Allergy Service, maintained by the Institute of Food Research in the United Kingdom, asserts that “to date, no food derived from GMOs has been found to cause new allergies.”GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersThe more genetically modified plants become present on the market, the more people will be consuming proteins new to the human diet. The possibility that isolated cases of allergic reactions to a new protein could arise is not out of the question. Automatically assuming that genetically modified foods cause allergic reactions, however, is not justified.
-
This Question: 1GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By UsersThe American Cancer Society says that there are “many possible causes” for cancer and provides comprehensive lists of established and anticipated cancer-causing agents. GMOs are not on the lists, not even in the “Reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens” category.GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersEating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. [...] GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
-
This Question: 0GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By Users“To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human populationGMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersAbove we see two or more coexisting medical conditions or diseases that directly contribute to Autism: disrupted gut bacteria and impaired homeostasis of sulfur metabolites (especially sulfate). Two or more of these biomarkers found is almost certain that a child will have Autism. When we factor in that glyphosate is found in mother’s breast milk, there is no doubt of the directly correlation between Roundup and the diseases that are skyrocketing in our society now.
-
This Question: 0GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By UsersGMOs offer a valuable tool for responding to the serious problem of malnutrition facing many people around the world.GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersIntegrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world.
-
This Question: 0GMOs are the future and pose little health risk because:Top Support Story Added By Users[A]dvocates say that GM crops have increased agriculture production by nearly $100 billion and [...] GM cotton in China has helped farmers increased yields by nearly 6% since 1997 [...].GMOs are dangerous and need to be abandoned because:Top Support Story Added By UsersMost of the transgenic crops on the market today, however, have been designed to meet the needs of industrial farmers and their customers in the West.
Final Thoughts
-
Lea ThaliNia Creator
To date, no scary side effects have been shown to result from the consumption of GMOs. While the politics around this technology still needs to be worked out (patents on seeds should not be permitted), as long as we continue to test the technology, humankind will continue to see the many benefits of growing and eating genetically-modified foods.
-
Jordan GrossmanFounder of Niaterra News
The negative consequences of GMOs seem to have more to do with people's misuse of them or over-reliance than any evidence that they're dangerous. I'm concerned that, based on the evidence, it seems that some farmers may have been over-using pesticides because they had pesticide-resistant GMO crops.
The bigger issue is the hardest one to answer: what unknown consequences could we see? GMO crops are not created by the old-fashion breeding/blending/selection of traits. So the opportunity for unexpected outcomes would be higher.
For me, if GMOs are used because there are no alternatives to improve life on this planet in certain specific ways (eg starvation and malnutrition), then it's probably ok. Under circumstances where it's only going to boost profits, I don't see why would ever want to allow it.
-
Hermione Brice
It is hard to pick a side because GMOs are so new to the scientific world. I personally don't like the idea of glyphosate/"altered food" but there is currently no concrete evidence against it.
-
Neil Stafford
Even though there are some benefits, it seems that they are outweighed by the risks associated with the use of GMOs.
One of the main arguments for GMOs is that the world needs them in order to produce food for the growing population. I disagree with this because nearly one third of the food produced in the world is wasted. If the world as whole could become more efficient with food, then GMOs would not be necessary.
-
Karan Chhatpar
GMOs have their benefits but at the end of the day, what you're putting in your body is what affects it, and our physical health is more important than the sustenance of those things we are eating. I do not think they serve no purpose and by no means think they should be banned entirely, but the extent to which they are being used today is something I largely disagree with.
Vote
Countdown to End of Voting
| {{days}} | {{hours}} | {{minutes}} | {{seconds}} |
| days | hours | minutes | seconds |
More
Get a Daily Nia by Email
What are Nias Learn moreor