There are hundreds of GMO foods and crops approved for human consumption. They are an integral part of our diet, and our food supply has become so dependent on the technology that the entire industry has become a by-product of these products. The reality is though that we are missing the point.

I keep hearing that GMOs are bad for your health. Some people even say they’re dangerous to your health. This is a big topic, and although I don’t have a firm stance on GMOs, I do feel strongly that people should not be made to feel like it is a problem if they don’t want to buy them. The article below explores this topic and argues that there are no real health risks associated with GMOs, and the benefits outweigh the risks.

GMOs are a controversial topic. Some people believe they’re bad for you, while others think they have no effect on the human body. The issue is their potential effects on your health. For example, some people claim GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are bad for your health, while others believe GMO foods are safe and may even help prevent certain diseases.

GMOs are a big issue right now. It’s difficult to know what to believe with so many individuals discussing the benefits and drawbacks. So, to address the question, are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) harmful to your health? Let’s have a look at some more critical problems.

You like to listen rather than read? The audio recording is available for download here…

++

Vitamin A deficiency causes up to half a million youngsters to become blind each year.

What would you think if I told you that this is the most revealing statistic in the GMO debate?

Do you ever wonder what vitamin A has to do with those Project Verified Non-GMO logos on cereal boxes at Whole Foods? If that’s the case, here is the tale.

Ingo Potricus is a philanthropist and plant scientist from Switzerland who is credited with being one of the first to develop genetically modified rice. Yes, GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are produced.

So he’s the evil guy, isn’t he? Or, at the very least, a multinational’s accomplice?

His golden rice, in fact, was created to boost vitamin A levels. Potricus was able to develop a rice that has vitamin A in its grains rather than simply its inedible leaves by adding only three genes into the plant’s DNA (out of a total of approximately 50,000 genes).

Up to 500,000 youngsters lose their sight each year owing to vitamin A deficiency, with half of them dying within a year of being blind. This is avoided by eating golden rice.

Despite the fact that Potricus finished its research around 15 years ago and gave the seeds to subsistence farmers all over the globe for free, starving youngsters continue to be unable to access golden rice. Its progress has been stymied by vehement resistance.

As a result, we have a low-cost, high-nutrient crop. Seven years of in-depth scientific investigation. An innovation that has the potential to totally eradicate a preventable pandemic.

And this basic innovation isn’t getting to the folks who need it the most.

GMOs, on the other hand, aren’t they harmful?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes GMO research resembles a comic strip at times, with mad scientists and geniuses, and egotistical supervillains who mess with people’s food for their own pleasure and/or financial gain.

A melon is mating with the fish! Rice is good for the eyes! Your dick will expand if you eat this cereal! Frankenfoods! The island of Dr. Moreau! And so forth.

Unchecked power, unethical meddling, Monsanto, pesticides, pollution, and greed have all been associated with it.

I’ve figured it out. Nobody enjoys large-scale wicked schemes (except super-villains). But this is the actual world. Superheroes and super-villains do not exist. As is customary, the reality is much more complex. And it’s not all terrible.

When it comes to GMOs, scientists – who are, by the way, highly educated regular people, not wicked geniuses – usually work on genetic advances that are beneficial to humans.

  • to ward against illness;
  • to fight malnutrition and hunger;
  • enhanced plant breeding and husbandry techniques; and
  • Perhaps you’ll even be able to save a life.

Scientists, of course, do not communicate it effectively to non-scientists. (That’s what happens when you spend all day sitting on a fluorescent-lit sofa, attempting to piece together DNA from fungus or whatever, while also drafting grant applications.) As a result, the typical individual who isn’t a scientist imagines frightening scenarios.

Let me speak for my people, the scientific nerds, and help to close the gap.

There are about 150,000 licensed health and fitness professionals in the United States.

Save up to 30% on a comprehensive nutrition education program.

Learn all there is to know about nutrition, coaching, and how to convert that knowledge into a successful coaching practice.

Read more

word-image-9975

GMOs and how they become a four-letter word

If GMOs make you uncomfortable, you’re not alone.

Hundreds of recognized advocacy organizations, lawmakers, and well-known businesses such as Chipotle, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s are among the increasing number of anti-GMO activists challenging the safety of GMOs.

They say that eating genetically modified foods may lead to severe health issues including cancers, liver poisoning, allergic responses, and death.

Not surprisingly, more than half of the American public thinks that genetically modified foods are dangerous, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. A quarter of those polled indicated they look for GMOs on food labels before buying it.

GMOs seem to be both frightening and harmful.

But how many people are aware of what it is? Or, to put it another way, how do they function?

What is a genetically modified organism (GMO)?

A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a live creature that has undergone evolutionary manipulation via breeding, engineering, or mutagenesis (something that intentionally changes the genetic material of an organism).

People who are opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) seldom speak about them. Instead, they discuss GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, which are creatures that have been altered by scientists in a laboratory.

DNA is surgically changed for a particular purpose in genetically engineered plants, animals, and microorganisms, for example. For example, to improve rice’s vitamin A content, to develop plants that need less water, or to research hereditary disorders.

You’ve undoubtedly heard of Roundup Ready® corn, for example. It’s a resistant maize cultivar to the herbicide Roundup.

To kill weeds, Roundup is often sprayed on fields. EPSP synthase is a plant enzyme that it targets. Weeds are destroyed when EPSP synthase is harmed. However, this is true of other plants as well.

The EPSP synthase enzyme is still present in Roundup-Ready maize, but it is a different form that is immune to this assault. The weeds die as a consequence, but the maize thrives.

It’s as easy as adding or subtracting.

We may speak about adding or deleting anything when we talk about altering an organism’s DNA:

  • You may build something new by adding code to your current DNA system.

This technique is known as gene implantation, and the end result would be a transgenic organism (i.e., you transferred the gene).

For example, they used a bacterium’s EPSP synthase gene to produce Roundup-ready maize.

  • You may also halt the current DNA part’s program.

This is referred to as gene knocking.

It’s worth noting that knock-in and knock-out happen all the time in nature.

Chickens, for example, used to have teeth that looked like alligator teeth. (Isn’t it terrifying?)

They still have the talpid2 gene, which was previously important for tooth production, but it has been removed over time by natural selection. It isn’t functioning right now. Thank you very much.

Knockouts are mostly used for research reasons in terms of methodology. They assist us in understanding the function of a certain gene.

Did genetically modified organisms (GMOs) save your life today?

As I previously said, the overwhelming majority of GMOs are mice, bacteria, and viruses utilized for disease and medicine research in labs all around the globe, rather than agricultural crops like maize and soybeans.

I’ve produced hundreds of genetically edited bacteria, hundreds of genetically changed yeasts, and a genetically engineered mouse as a molecular scientist. They’ve helped me understand how muscles grow and repair, and how we might use that knowledge to create therapies for muscular dystrophy.

Microorganism genetic manipulation has resulted in the creation of some of our time’s most innovative and life-saving drugs:

  • If you have type 1 diabetes, genetically engineered bacteria have made insulin less expensive, safer, and more readily accessible.
  • If you had a hereditary growth problem like Turner’s syndrome or short gut syndrome, you’d get human growth hormone injections from genetically designed microbes to keep your development under control.
  • If you have hemophilia, I’m sure you’d feel a lot better if your treatment was provided by a health insurance company rather than blood donations. Recombinant human factor VIII is produced by cells in laboratory plates.
  • If you suffer a stroke or a heart attack, medicines based on tissue plasminogen activator, a cellular GMO, may be used to treat you.
  • If you have multiple sclerosis, interferon, which is also generated by GMO cells, may help you.
  • The enzyme you’re taking for cystic fibrosis, dornase alpha, is produced from GMOs.
  • Do you have cancer and are receiving chemotherapy? Erythropoietin (EPO – yep, EPO) and granulocyte colony stimulating factor are two GMO medicines that improve your bone marrow and blood count (G-CSF or GCSF).
  • Lactose sensitivity and lactase consumption? It’s made from GMOs with the help of fungal or yeast genes.
  • You’ll be thankful to ZMap, a collection of antibodies derived from genetically engineered tobacco infected with genetically modified viruses, if you ever become sick with Ebola (God forbid).

Finally, it’s regrettable that the public’s perception of GM crops has led to a stigmatization of all things GM. Because genetically modified crops make up a very tiny part of what’s going on in the field of genetic engineering, which is mostly about saving lives and helping people.

word-image-9976

They are, nevertheless, unnatural!

GMOs are often referred to as “non-natural.” And they are correct when they speak about genetic engineering.

Natural, random recombination and genetic mutation are responsible for most of the evolution we see on our planet. That is, in fact, how you and I were born.

The intentional development of GMOs, on the other hand – remember, this is genetic engineering – is deliberate and strategic. And that may be beneficial.

This is why.

For thousands of years, farmers have been deliberately altering organisms by tinkering with DNA (whether they are aware of it or not). Our forefathers tamed hundreds of plants, created agriculture, and cultivated plants that are still our primary source of nutrition today.

Artificial selection, which involves selecting certain characteristics in crops or animals over many generations, has been used to improve the flavor, texture, size, and environmental resilience of crops like maize and wheat.

Tomatoes, for example, used to be tiny and sour; if you want larger, sweeter tomatoes, only sow the seeds of the largest, sweetest tomatoes.

In the seventeenth century. Dutch farmers cultivated orange carrots in the 19th century, not yellow or purple, as some believe, in commemoration of the orange Dutch flag.

The modern customer expects all goods to be gleaming, perfect, and streak-free. (Did you know that bananas used to have seeds?) This is conceivable because of the following factors: The majority of goods are chosen (i.e. genetically engineered) to be free of insects and seeds.

Pets have also been subjected to artificial selection: in 1950, the typical chicken produced 125 eggs per year. We bred them to lay 250 eggs each year decades later.

Aurochs were the cows’ great-great grandparents (plus a few more great-great grandparents). They were larger, and they were a bunch of knuckleheads. We’ve ended up with animals so docile they can be toppled (if you’re an idiot yourself) after years and years of humans selecting the most malleable aurors.

But here’s the deal:

Genetic modification isn’t a new or frightening science.

This is something we’ve been doing for a long time. We accomplished it, though, in a primitive, inaccurate, chainsaw-like manner.

We can now accomplish this in the finest conceivable manner, thanks to genetic engineering: strategically, precisely, and with a scalpel. We also have a lot better understanding of what we’re altering and how it will affect things.

True, genetic engineering allows you to utilize any gene from any organism – you can even synthesize your own DNA – to create combinations that would never have existed otherwise. But it isn’t really a reason to oppose GE.

Foreign DNA is continuously being introduced into different species in nature, which may have a variety of good, bad, and unknown effects.

About 8% of human DNA, for example, is made up of viruses that have infected our bodies throughout history. This viral DNA aids in the formation of the placenta during pregnancy, as well as the creation of additional carbohydrate-breaking enzymes.

Maize is maize, in general.

One of the most common arguments against genetically modified food is that it can result in DNA disruption, the unintended insertion of non-functional genes (e.g., genes that can make a plant toxic), or the creation of genetic instability, which allows a plant to evolve (unintentionally and potentially in frightening ways) even after the scientists have finished.

Part of this anxiety stems from the previously stated worry of introducing alien genes into crop DNA.

The reality is that genetically engineered plants and animals aren’t all that different from those produced traditionally.

Take a look at illustration 1. We have both wild corn and maize that has been cultivated artificially for hundreds of years. Take a look at how diverse maize has evolved as a result of non-GMO methods (i.e., artificial selection or the chainsaw method).

word-image-17974

A spike of theosinte (Zea mays ssp mexicana) on the left, a spike of corn on the right, and a spike of his F1 hybrid in the center (Photo by John Doebley). On chromosome 10, there are traces of maize domestication and signs of extensive selective stripping. Feng Tian, Natalie M. Stevens, and Edward S. Buckler. Tian, Feng, Natalie M. Stevens, and Edward S. Buckler. 9979-9986 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 1 (2009).

Figure 2 shows the differences between traditional and genetically modified maize. Can you figure out which one it is?

word-image-17975

Thanks to Jason Haegele for his help.

Figure 3 illustrates this point. Is the policeman on some kind of steroid or something? (We’ll return to this point later.)

word-image-17976

Cattle with double muscles owing to mutations in the myostatin gene. PNAS 1997 94 (23) 12457-12461 Alexandra C. McFerron and Xie Jin Lee

In comparison to traditional breeding or artificial selection, genetic engineering is a far more accurate technique that offers fewer choices.

Both techniques change the genes in the body. The difference is in the amount and accuracy with which the modifications are made. A quick comparison:

The use of genetic engineering Selection from the past
Only a few genes (typically only one) are altered, leaving the rest unaffected. Hundreds of genes are mixed in at once, and their location in the DNA is altered.
Allows for precise control over where (e.g. in the seed, but not in the plant) and when (e.g. throughout development, but not after the plant has reached full maturity) each gene is active. Breeders have no notion where these genes are situated, when they are expressed, or how they are expressed.

What does this imply?

Except for one or two genes, genetically modified maize is identical to natural corn.

In wild maize, on the other hand, several genes (about 5 gene clusters) are different, each resulting in minor changes in the plant.

These are some of the effects:

  • What type of starch does maize produce, and how much of it?
  • The kind of soil and environment in which the corn will be grown.
  • What is the length of the bottle and the number of grains in each row?
  • Size, shape, and color of grains
  • Resistance to pests (yes, even conventional corn can be pest resistant).

As a result, conventional agricultural methods have a far larger effect on our food than genetic engineering in the vast majority of instances.

Figure 3 depicts a bred bull, rather than a genetically engineered bull. Again, this isn’t genetic engineering; it’s artificial selection.

A gene (myostatin) altered by accident (another chainsaw comparison), and this cow (Belgian blue) was created. It has twice the muscular mass and virtually none of the fat (less than skinless chicken breast).

This accident would not have occurred if genetic engineering had been used with the accuracy that most people dread when discussing GMOs. However, with artificial selection – which the majority of people appear to support – you get this errant cow.

The main dangers posed by GMOs

There is nothing about genetic engineering that is inherently hazardous. As I have said, this technique is probably even safer than most current methods.

Some GMOs, on the other hand, may have ramifications for the world food supply.

For starters, weeds and pests may kill certain genetically engineered crops.

Weeds and humans are at odds with each other. The winner receives the harvest. This conflict, like many others, has witnessed military expansion and the proliferation of weaponry.

Herbicides are used by people (chemicals that are toxic to weeds and living things in general). Herbicide resistance develops as a result of this. As a result, individuals are more likely to apply the other herbicide. The escalation is still going on.

The issue is that crops can only withstand a certain quantity of herbicide before becoming wartime collateral damage.

Genetic engineering and herbicide-resistant crops (remember Roundup?) were developed as a solution.

That concludes our discussion. Isn’t it true that the battle is over?

That isn’t how it works. Herbicide usage has almost eradicated all weeds, but the few that have remained have hyper-evolved and are spawning herbicide-resistant variants.

More herbicides, please! The war continues.

Weeds grow resistant to these pesticides over time, and yields decrease dramatically.

Bt-maize is also designed to generate its own insecticide in order to kill caterpillars that may consume it. Isn’t it fantastic? But what if other, more deadly bugs are simply waiting for these weak and vulnerable caterpillars to attack and devour their remains?

Genetic degradation is the second significant danger posed by GMOs to our food supply.

When a tiny gene pool gets even smaller and more uniform, this is known as genetic erosion.

The process of bringing genetically modified goods to market is heavily regulated and may take up to 12 years.

Ensure 100 percent genetic homogeneity of genetically modified goods is a part of this procedure. Every grain of corn, every ear of corn, must have the same DNA.

This genetic degradation, or uniformity, may lead to a loss of variety, putting our food supply at risk.

Because all creatures share the same DNA, they are vulnerable to the same threats. Our crops may be destroyed in an instant by plague, drought, mold, or other diseases. Then we’ll go hungry.

GMOs are not to blame.

Escalating herbicide use and genetic degradation must be addressed seriously. However, in order to develop answers, it is necessary to realize that these issues are not exclusive to GMOs.

Consider the following scenario:

  • We are well aware of the excessive amounts of pesticides found in many retail fruits and vegetables.
  • Herbicide escalation may also be caused by non-GMO crops (weeds just become resistant to them through natural selection).
  • Genetic degradation is not a new issue: 100,000 years of breeding techniques have already produced some degree of homogeneity (although it is prudent to ensure that genetically modified crops with advantages over conventional crops do not further reduce the gene pool).

Without a doubt, genetically engineered activities must be thoroughly investigated and rigorously controlled. It’s a good thing we have control groups in place to keep everything under check. Scientists, like everyone else, make errors and are occasionally incorrect!

However, we must consider the broader picture. By focusing only on genetically engineered foods, we are ignoring 95% of the issue.

Is it safe to eat genetically modified foods?

I understand what you’re looking for, and I empathize with you. Many of the foods we consume include genetically engineered components and chemicals.

To begin, there are 1500 peer-reviewed studies that show that genetically modified foods are safe. However, I will not depend on them. There are certain animal studies that are concerning, but I will not cite them.

Because, despite the fact that most scientists think genetically modified foods are probably safe, science will never be able to prove it definitively.

The answer is much more complex than a simple yes or no, or a pro or con.

We need to move on from research and cease pigeonholing ourselves.

Nothing can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone will die if you choose anything.

So let us examine the mature problems and grey zones, and consider the trade-offs we are willing to make in a scientific and informed manner.

Consider the following scenario:

  • What elements of genetic engineering have the potential to be genuinely beneficial to the world? Why?
  • What elements should be avoided at all costs? Why?
  • What do we know to be true (or more probable) and what is just conjecture? What proof do you have?
  • To what degree does our dread of the unknown stem from our discomfort with it?
  • Are the risks and benefits appropriately weighed?
  • What level of risk is acceptable in relation to the benefit?

As a scientist, I want to encourage people to value research, evidence, and the thrill of discovery. Scientists work on problems that are tough and complicated. And the majority of them just want to improve the world.

What should I do now?

What else can you do except return to school for a PhD in biology?

1. Improve your ability to think.

In virtually every scientific issue, good and evil are pitted against one other. Time in space bends as well. Recognize that the issues are complex.

We suggest our Level 1 and Level 2 nutrition certifications if you wish to practice.

2. Be a shopper, a student, and a critical listener.

The greatest dangers presented by GMO crops in today’s market are not aimed at your particular health, and they aren’t even unique to GMOs, contrary to what the mainstream media would have you think.

Taking one viewpoint and thinking the other is irrational prevents genuine dialogue. Scientific findings given as the last word are likely to be misunderstood; be wary of anybody who claims to know all there is to know about GMOs.

We won’t be able to offer you a definite answer even if we were scientists. There isn’t one because there isn’t one.

3. Dealing with particular issues. Don’t get the two mixed up.

It is essential to think critically about our worries about GMOs and other food safety and regulatory problems.

  • Are you a pesticide skeptic? That concludes our discussion. That, however, is not the same as being anti-GMO, and concentrating on GMOs here is asking the wrong questions.
  • Do you think food that has been genetically engineered should be labeled as such? That concludes our discussion. However, the significance of food labeling extends far beyond GMOs.
  • Are you concerned about large companies gaining control over our food? I see your point. Instead of speaking out against GMOs, speak out against big food.

Herbicides and insecticides are used in both traditional agriculture and GMOs, decreasing the gene pool and raising the chance of catastrophic crop failure. Combining these elements will never result in change.

4. Concentrate on the broad picture and the most important issues.

In the United States, accidents are the fourth largest cause of mortality. Seat belt use lowers the risk of early mortality much more than GMO worries. (And, you know who you are, stop texting while driving.)

Physical inactivity, stress, and poor diet are among the other major causes of mortality. People don’t eat veggies, period. Ignore genetically designed vegetables.

So begin with the most essential habits that will have the most impact. (If you’re not sure what we’re talking about, have a look at our nutrition coaching packages for men and women.)

5. Encourage common sense and prudence.

The world may be intimidating in general. What we don’t comprehend may seem much more baffling.

As much as possible, control what you can. Select DU with the greatest consistency and efficiency.

To get started, look at this infographic.

References

To view the sources of information used in this article, go here.

Plant domestication and herbivore tolerance, Chaudhary B. International Journal of Plant Genomics. 2013;2013:572784.

Diamond, G. M. Weapons, bacilli and steel. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997.

JF Doebley, BS Gaut, and BD Smith. Cage. 2006 Dec 29;127(7):1309-21. Molecular genetics of crop domestication. Review.

JL Domingo, JG Giné Bordonaba, JL Domingo, JL Giné Bordonaba, JL Giné Bordonaba, JL Giné Bordonaba, JL Giné Bordonaba, JL Giné Bordonaba Int., May 2011;37(4):734-42.

Virology: Borneavirus invades the genome, Feshotte C. Nature, vol. 463, no. 7277, pp. 39-40, 7 January 2010.

Policy Statement – Nutrition of New Plant Varieties, FDA.gov. Web. 17. September 2015. N.p., 2015. [http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm].

The truth about genetically modified foods, by D.H. Friedman. The twentieth issue of Scientific American was published on August 20, 2013.

Intrinsic retrovirus reactivation in human preimplantation embryos and pluripotent cells, Grow EJ, Flynn RA, Chavez SL, Bayless NL, Wossidlo M, Wesche DJ, Martin L, Ware CB, Blish CA, Chang HY, Pera RA, Wysocka J. Nature, 522(7555), 221-5, June 11, 2015.

R. Hamilton The finest harvests are bred. Web. 17. September 2015. Sci Am 19.2 (2009): 16-17. Agriculture’s Long-Term Future [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/agricultures-Long-Term-Future/ ].

Endogenous viral elements in animal genomes, Katzourakis A, Gifford RJ. PLoS Genet. 6(11):e1001191 (November 18, 2010).

Mobile phone usage and the risk of brain tumors: a sequential study, Lagorio S, Röösli M. Bioelectromagnetic, vol. 35, no. 2, 2014, pp. 79-90.

PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Le (first part). 59:771-812 in Annu Rev Plant Biol.

PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux, PG Lemaux (part II). 511-559 in Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2009.

Mandell DJ, Lajoie MJ, Mee MT, Takeuchi R, Kuznetsov G, Norville JE, Gregg CJ, Stoddard BL, Church GM, Norville JE, Gregg CJ, Stoddard BL, Church GM. Synthetic protein design for biopreservation of genetically modified organisms. Nature 518(7537):55-60 (February 5, 2015). doi: 10.1038/nature14121.

AC McPherron and SJ Lee PNAS 1997 94 (23) 12457-12461. Double muscles in cattle owing to mutations in the myostatin gene.

Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy Syncytin is a retrovirus envelope protein that has a role in placental morphogenesis in humans. Nature, 403(6771), pp. 785-9, February 17, 2000.

Committee on the Identification and Evaluation of Unintended Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods, National Research Council (USA). Approaches to the evaluation of unexpected health consequences in genetically modified foods. National Academies Press (USA), Washington, D.C., 2004.

Review of the past 10 years of study on the safety of genetically modified crops. Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. 2014 Mar;34(1):77-88. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;34(1):77-88.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/) PEWS Report

Feng Tian, Natalie M. Stevens, and Edward S. Buckler. Tian, Feng, Natalie M. Stevens, and Edward S. Buckler. On chromosome 10, there are traces of maize domestication and signs of enormous selection pressure. 9979-9986 in PNAS 106.Suppl 1 (2009).

L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom, L. M. Van Blerkom

Spread and consequences of genetically modified feed on farm animals, Van Eenennaam AL, Young AE. 2014 Oct;92(10):4255-78 in J Anim Sci.

Wieczorek, A. M. & Wright, M. G. (2012) Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):9. History of biotechnology in agriculture : How the plant developed.

If you are or wish to be a personal trainer….

It’s both an art and a science to teach customers, patients, friends, and family members about healthy food and lifestyle modifications that are tailored to their bodies, tastes, and situations.

Consider Level 1 certification if you want to learn more about both.

There has been a lot of controversy over genetically modified foods (GMOs) recently, and the crop-growing industry has recently started to gain ground in the UK. The reason for this is that there is no conclusive evidence that GMOs are harmful to people, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests they are bad for us.. Read more about why are gmos good and let us know what you think.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is GMO bad for health?

I am not a doctor, but I do know that GMO is bad for health.

Why should we not use GMOs?

There are many reasons why you should not use GMOs. One of the most important is that they have been shown to cause cancer in lab animals.

What are the main issues of concern of GMO for human health?

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are a type of organism that has been genetically modified in order to produce desired traits. These include resistance to pests and herbicides, tolerance to high heat and cold, increased nutritional value, and the ability to withstand heavy doses of radiation.

This article broadly covered the following related topics:

  • gmos
  • what does gmo do to your body
  • gmo statistics
  • how does genetically modified food affect the human body
  • are gmos good or bad
You May Also Like

Research Review: High-protein diets – safe for kidneys

High protein diets (HPDs) have been promoted as safe for the kidneys.…

Do you need to eat fruits and vegetables to be healthy? —

This article is all about healthy eating! When you eat fruits and…

An egg is number one on Instagram — News

This post is about a very popular food item among Instagram influencers,…

All About Breakfast Cereals |

For many, breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It’s…