Skip to the content
In summary the article articulates that the U.S.D.A. approved this new potato for commercial planting and that this new and improved version contains less acrylamide (which some suspect may cause cancer when fried) and was less easily bruised. Ironically, the company that will be producing this modified potato is also a major supplier of french fries to McDonalds.
Let me begin with my first skepticism about acrylamide. Though shown to cause increase the risk of cancer in rodents at high levels, no direct human connection has ever been made. Plus, a toxic level of acrylamide for human consumption has yet to be been ascertained. As a physician, I have followed medical literature for almost 2 decades and have read time and time again how many, if not most rodent medical, drug and clinical trials have no clinical relevance when dealing with humans. Thus, to make this leap of faith and undue what Mother Nature has created without hard facts is at best nearsighted and premature.
Second, what exact genes are they modifying so that the potato does not bruise? Is there a health benefit that a bruised potato possesses that we are now eradicating? Do the genes that cause bruising have some beneficial effect for the potato itself? Has anyone specifically asked these questions or looked into it before having the modified potato approved by the U.S.D.A?
Though the potato is modified using genes from the potato itself, does not mean that the exact desired effect will be achieved. What if tinkering with one of the potato’s genes causes unintended other genes to turn on or off in the process which lead to unintended consequences. What if these genetically modified potatoes are less hardy and will die more easily under temperamental environmental changes? What if these genetically modified potatoes cross germinate with other natural potatoes to produce an unwanted hybrid?
And finally, does the U.S.D.A have our, the people’s, interests in mind or are companies that produce the genetically modified foods somehow financially influencing them or our Congressmen to bring their products to the market? I don’t know, but I will make sure the next potato I eat will not be a Frankenpotato.
Genetically modified foods are more widely grown and distributed than many people realize. In fact, people don’t realize it because warning labels are not required when selling these foods. Though genetic manipulation may sound logical to some, the consequences of transforming the food is yet to be determined. I have found an interesting list of reason genetically modified foods are worrisome:
-
Genetic engineering reduces genetic diversity. When genes are more diverse, they are more robust; this is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants, which could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival.
-
Once the mutant genes are out of the bag, there is no going back. Genetically modified organisms contaminate existing seeds with their altered material, passing on modified traits to non-target species. This creates a new strain of plant that was never intended in the laboratory. In North Dakota, recent studies show that 80% of wild canola plants tested contained at least one transgene.
-
GMOs are not the answer for global food security. Genetically engineered crops have shown no increase in yield and no decrease in pesticide use.
-
Genetically engineered foods have not been proven to be safe, but the few studies conducted don’t look so hot. The organs of rats who ate genetically modified potatoes showed signs of chronic wasting, and female rates fed a diet of herbicide-resistant soybeans gave birth to stunted and sterile pups.
-
Big biotech firms have very sketchy track records, but then again what would you expect from organizations who want to patent the world’s food supply?
-
GMOs require massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. These things are poisons, and should not be eaten or allowed to run off into our water supply. But they are, every day, by companies who care far more about the bottom line than they do about your health, your environment or your children’s future.
-
No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause.
-
There can be nutritional difference between GM food and non-GM food. A 2012 nutritional analysis of GM versus non-GM corn showed shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GM corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times more manganese than GM corn. GM corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it may be carcinogenic in the parts-per-trillion range, compared to zero in non-GM corn.
Remember, gene therapy even in humans has never been proven to be completely safe. Remember the deaths and disease caused by gene therapy over the past 20 years? Scientists claimed it was safe. However, the people at placed at risk in these gene therapy studies are minor compared all those at risk from consuming GMO food products.
By 2013, farmers were growing genetically modified crops on more than 420 million acres of land across 28 countries. However, both the environmental and human safety of these crops still remains highly debated. Without long term, controlled human safety data available, this concern is certainly valid.
Because of this concern, politicians, particularly in Europe, have created regulations to monitor GM products. However, in the United States, labeling of these foods is not mandated by the government. In fact, it is mostly voluntary in nature.
A new test called “MACRO,” which stands for: multiplex amplification on a chip with readout on an oligo microarray is now available to identify these crops. The sensitivity of this new genetic test is the best on the market and can identify about 97 percent of the known commercialized modifications.
As the Europeans take the lead in using such tests, the United States lags behind with the transparency of these foods. While the FDA goes after soaps and e-cigarettes, real and potential harmful foods/chemicals can be poisoning our country with little being done to stop it. Where are our priorities? Better yet, who is paying off the FDA and politicians?