Today, Scientific American reflects on the battle to force special labeling on genetically modified food. Scientific American points out that there is no health risk from modified crops, and the world's scientists stand by that claim. [quote]The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.[/quote] They point out that where GMO labels have been introduced, GMO products will not sell, forcing the market to discontinue them. Because GMO crops are usually designed to be hardier, more bug resistant, and require less water, abandoning them comes at significant cost for no tangible gain. Finally, the article argues that shunning GMOs is throwing away a significant weapon to fight world hunger. [quote] Antagonism toward GMO foods also strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits to people in developing countries and promises far more. Recently published data from a seven-year study of Indian farmers show that those growing a genetically modified crop increased their yield per acre by 24 percent and boosted profits by 50 percent. These farmers were able to buy more food—and food of greater nutritional value—for their families. To curb vitamin A deficiency—which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them—researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A; several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.[/quote] However, to me, the most powerful argument they have was given a passing mention. [quote]We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.[/quote] I think this is the line of reasoning Darwin would use. I think this is the simple, inescapable point right under everyone's nose. That there is really no such thing as a farm crop that hasn't been genetically engineered by humans. [url=http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/corn/]How natural does corn look when placed side-by-side with it's wild, natural counterpart[/url]? Not very. That is genetic engineering without even noticing we did it. When is the last time you've seen a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs]wild cow[/url]? Domesticated animals are not a product of natural evolution. They are genetically engineered over thousands of years. Why is OK to turn [url=http://milend.ua/images/image1176678151289389622.jpg]this[/url] into [url=http://nullalternative.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/domestic-pig3.jpg]this[/url], yet feeding it some hardier wheat suddenly makes it unhealthy? In origin of species, when Darwin sought to explain evolution by selection over time, he started with dogs and pigeons. Why? Because there is no wild poodle, nor has there ever been. Yet, it is here. We created it, over time, by selecting it's genes. We had already proven evolution in creating Canis Lupus familiaris. Just as the dog was proof of concept for evolution by selection. Cows, pigs, and corn are proof of concept for the safety of genetically modified food. They aren't natural. They've all been engineered by us to some degree. The exact same technology that has been unwittingly applied throughout human history to domesticate plants and animals is now suddenly being rejected because of completely arbitrary reasons. Now we are better at picking out genes we want changed, that somehow makes it more unhealthy than the last 10,000 years of artificial gene selection? Nonsense. Genetically modified foods are not inherently any better or worse for you than the food humans modified to suit our needs thousands of years ago.