top of page

Our group did some of our own analysis of some primary scholarly articles relating to our topic.

Here's what they found:

 

The main research question that this article examines is how are the feeding values of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans compared to the feeding values of the parent crop they were derived from. The researchers were studying the safety assessment of soybeans that had been genetically modified to tolerate in-season application of glyphosate. The researchers used results from previous studies to hypothesize the safety of the genetically modified crops. Due to the substantial similarity between the genetically modified crops and their parental crops, the researchers hypothesized that the genetically modified soybeans are safe to eat and should be commercially accepted. Even though previous studies show the similarity between the genetically modified soybeans and the commercial soybean varieties, animal feeding trials were performed to provide even more evidence to allow commercial acceptance of the genetically modified variety. In the study, the growth and gain-to-feed performance of animals fed the genetically modified variety was comparable to the animals fed the commercially available soybeans. The results show that “the lack of material differences in the various measured variables for the diverse animal species fed GTS and parental-line soybeans confirms that the GTS are equivalent to the parental soybeans for use in animal feeds.” When compared with results for the rats fed commercial rat diet, body weights and body weight gains were slightly lower in male rats fed processed meal from GTS line, but not in the females. These lower numbers however were attributable to differences in processing conditions between the modified crops and the commercial crops. These results do support the researchers original hypotheses that the compositional similarity between genetically modified soybeans and their parent crop means that there is no difference in effect between the two varieties of crops. These results support the idea that there are no safety issues involved with genetically modified crops, and that the studies that have shown negative effects are inconclusive. 

 

Citation

Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. 1996 The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 126:717-27. 

 

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/126/3/717.full.pdf

 

-Alex Patterson

The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance

Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?

 

The main research question of this experiment was, “Can we conclude that there is a large difference between opinions and behaviors when it comes to products containing GMO’s? Does the hostility of the ‘citizen’, become attenuated when he is placed in the role of a ‘consumer’?” This can be summed up in basic terms as, “is there a difference in consumers’ opinions on products when they know that the product contains something “genetically modified” in its ingredients? Does it make their desire for the product decrease when they find out this information?” Their hypothesis is not entirely clear from their report, though I assume that since it should reflect the question, it assumedly hypothesizes that the impact of the awareness of genetically modified ingredients leads to a negative stigma and undesirable effect on the product. The main results of the experiment show an opposition by consumers to buy a product when they find out that the product contains something genetically modified. It also proves that typically, consumers do not notice the labeling on the packaging of the products they purchase and consume, but that when they are made blatantly aware of it, they immediately form an opinion that can impact their decision to purchase and/or consume that product.

When the term “genetically modified” comes into play, the general consensus appears to be negative, with a decrease in willingness-to-pay for the product that contains something genetically modified. The results of the experiment seem to support the researcher’s initial hypothesis, if the hypothesis is what I assumed it to be. Regarding the controversy my group is studying, this experiment does not help our stance, but it also does not hurt our stance; it shows that there are obstacles that we will need to overcome in order to get our point across and accepted by the public, when they already have negative views on our topic. We are arguing for the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms and foods, and we are trying to convince the population that they are safe to consume. The results of the experiment show people’s unwillingness to buy consumable products when they know that the products contain genetically modified crops. This kind of thinking creates a negative stigma towards anything genetically modified and pushes the thoughts that genetically modified products are unsafe and undesirable. This directly supports the opposing perspective of our argument and appeals to people’s fear of that which they don’t know a lot about, which makes it harder for pro-GMO arguments to be accepted.

 

 

Citation:

Noussair, C. N., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75(1), 47-53. 

 

- Deena Kahn

 

This study wanted to compare the safety of rice genetically modified with the insecticidal genes from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to that of rice that had not been genetically modified by monitoring the digestive and overall health of rats given a diet of 60% GM rice versus those with a similar but not genetically modified diet. As far as the nutritional makeup of the rice, there were some statistically significant differences between the Bt rice and the control rice. However, similar studies on the nutrition of the two types of rice had already been completed and had found that no statistically significant differences between the two types of rice existed; the authors speculate that their variation might have nothing to do with genetic modification but biological variation. There were a few statistically significant differences in the bloodwork of the rats of the different groups. The researchers say that most of these differences are minor, except for the decrease in white blood cells in the experimental male rats. (There was no statistical difference in white blood cells in the female rats.) The rats given the Bt diet had less bifidobacteria and more coliform bacteria. At the end of the study, when the rats were killed and underwent necropsies, there was no pathological findings. However, a small percentage of the sample of male rats showed signs of unilateral testicular degeneration, which may have accounted for the discrepancies in testes weight. Both the experimental and control group had male rats with the degeneration at about the same rate (2 of 16 rats in the control group, 3 of 16 in the experimental group.) There were no findings that would have led to the conclusion that Bt rice is unsafe, despite the warnings about dangers of genetically modified foods from anti-GMO activists, though the authors did concede that it would be wise to conduct further studies to investigate whether the differences in bacteria are biologically significant or a repeat experiment with a third group of rats that would be given a higher dose of Bt rice.

 

 

 

Citation

Schrøder, Malene, Morten Poulsen, Andrea Wilcks, Stine Kroghsbo, Andreas Miller, Thomas Frenzel, Jürgen Danier, Michael Rychlik, Kaveh Emami, Angharad Gatehouse, Qingyao Shu, Karl-Heinz Engel, Illimar Altosaar, and Ib Knudsen. "A 90-day Safety Study of Genetically Modified Rice Expressing Cry1Ab Protein (Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxin) in Wistar Rats." Food and Chemical Toxicology 45.3 (2007): 339-49. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

 

-Allison Ordway

A 90-day Safety Study of Genetically Modified Rice Expressing Cry1Ab Protein (Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxin) in Wistar Rats.

bottom of page