Are foods derived from genetically modified crops nutritionally superior?

Opinion # 1There are no long-term studies proving that genetically engineered foods are safe. Nearly 50 other countries already require labeling of genetically engineered food - including all of Europe, Australia, Japan and China. A good example of a genetically modified food is corn that contains the insecticide BT toxin inside the corn itself and this corn is now classified as an insecticide. How can that be good for us? The majority of processed foods contain GMO's, anything with corn syrup and most soy products are GMO's.

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.

Neither 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.