# data[].attributes.body
-The FDA does not test Genetically modified food for safety.
-Most people eat Genetically Modified Food without even knowing.
-The United States leads the world in producing Genetically Modified food

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gmo's are in the science field because it basically is food created/injected with science.
2. This topic is so controversial because people question putting chemicals that scientists claim are good for you is actually better for you compared to natural food.
3. After researching this topic, I learned how common and controversial Gmo's are in today's world
4. The most significant thing I found about Gmos is how they can affect 3rd world countries. With our food becoming bigger and growing more of the produce will allow for these countries to get food.
5. I believe that Gmos will be more widely used and more socially accepted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, farmers have bred crops for certain desirable traits. Genetic engineering provides a quicker and more precise way to achieve the same goal, in one generation rather than twenty. Genetically Modified (GM) crops offer improved yields, enhanced nutritional value, longer shelf life, and resistance to drought, frost, or insect pests.

# data[].attributes.body
Topic of article-
Gmos : Pros and Cons

Who- Debra Sullivan

What- Both sides of Gmos Positives and Negatives

When- October 5, 2016

Where- University of Nevada

Why- This article allows for the viewer to make their own decisions on Gmos. The article heavily favors Gmos saying "they are the food of the future".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you've eaten anything today, chances are you've snacked on GMOs. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Genetically modified (GM) foods are made from soy, corn, or other crops grown from seeds with genetically engineered DNA.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GM seeds are used to plant more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans, and cotton grown in the United States. Unless you consciously avoid them, GM foods likely find their way into many of your snacks and meals.

Some people believe GM foods are safe, healthy, and sustainable, while others claim the opposite. Read on to learn about the pros and cons - and what the research says.

Scientists genetically engineer seeds for many reasons. For example, they sometimes make changes designed to increase a plant's:

resistance to insects

tolerance to herbicides

tolerance for heat, cold, or drought

crop yield

They also engineer seeds to give GM foods stronger colors, increase their shelf life, or eliminate seeds. That's why we can buy seedless watermelons and grapes. Some GM foods also have been engineered to have higher levels of specific nutrients, such as protein, calcium, or folate.

Proponents of GM food contend that genetic engineering can help us find sustainable ways to feed people. Specifically, in countries that lack access to nutrient-rich foods. The heartiness of some GM crops makes it so they can grow in marginal environments. The longer shelf life of some GM foods allows them to be shipped to remote areas.

On the other hand, some people wonder if GM foods are safe and healthy to eat. Genetic engineering is a relatively new development. As a result, research on the long-term health effects of GM foods is limited.

GM foods have to meet the same safety requirements as foods grown from non-GM seeds. But critics suggest there's more to be concerned about. Some people worry that GM foods may be linked to allergies, antibiotic resistance, or cancer. Others suggest these concerns are unfounded. Here's what the research says.

Allergies

Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), food allergies in children under 18 years of age have increased; from 3.4 percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1 percent between 2009 and 2011.

Some people believe that spike is linked to GM foods. But there's no evidence that GM foods in general are more likely to trigger allergic reactions than non-GM foods, according to a study from Harvard University.

Others raise concerns about the transfer of specific proteins from one plant to another in genetic engineering. Proteins found in a relatively small number of foods cause most allergic reactions. Tree nuts are one of the most common triggers.

In the mid-1990s, researchers examined a strain of GM soybean that was engineered to contain protein from Brazil nuts. According to their report in the New England Journal of Medicine, the soybeans triggered allergic reactions in people with Brazil nut allergy. Those soybeans never entered the market and aren't sold to consumers.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have since established protocols for GM foods. They require GM foods to be tested for their ability to cause allergic reactions. According to the Mayo Clinic, none of the GM foods that are currently on the market have been found to have allergenic effects.

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can resist antibiotics, making them hard to kill. According to the , antibiotic-resistant germs infect two million people each year. Those infections kill at least 23,000 people per year.

Scientists often modify seeds using antibiotic-resistant genes in the genetic engineering process. Some people wonder if there's a link between these GM foods and rising rates of antibiotic resistant bacteria. No studies have confirmed this claim, but more research is needed.

Cancer

In 2013, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted a paper that linked the herbicide Roundup and Roundup-tolerant GM corn to cancer and premature death in rats. Due to concerns about the paper, the journal's editor reviewed the researchers' raw data and the peer-review process. They found the researchers had used too few rats, the specific strain of rats was prone to cancer, and the results were inconclusive.

Since then, the paper has been republished in another journal, Environmental Sciences Europe. The controversy surrounding the study's findings has continued.

According to the American Cancer Society, more research is needed to assess the potential long-term health effects of GM foods.

The European Commission requires GM food products in Europe to be labeled as such. But in the United States, no federal mandate exists for labeling GM foods. As a result, it can be hard to know if you're buying and eating GM foods.

If you decide to avoid GM foods, look for products that are USDA certified organic. Certified organic foods are grown and handled without the use of GMOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified foods are made with plants grown from seeds with genetically engineered DNA. Learn what the research has to say about their safety and if you should be incorporating them into your diet. If you're trying to avoid GMOs, we'll show you what labels to look for and how to best find GMO free foods.

# data[].attributes.body
topic of article- Genetically modified crops
title of article- "These Foods Aren’t Genetically Modified but They Are ‘Edited’"

who- Federal Agriculture Development
what- scientists that don't use the word "modified" but use "edited" because it doesn't sound as bad.
when- January 9th, 2017
where- all around the country
why- food could have less fat and taste better

# data[].attributes.body
Topic of article-
GMOs are not negatively affecting our health at all but rather helping to supply a sufficient amount of food to and for us.

Who- Megan Clark

What- Positive affects of Gmos

when- June 27, 2017

where- Northwest Missouri State University

why- when it comes down to it almost everything  has Gmos in it so people should know what they are ingesting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMOs are a misconception among health gurus and foodies alike. So, what is the brutally honest truth about GMOs? Are they really as harmful as some claim? To put it simply, no. They're not harmful but actually quite beneficial. GMOs are used to help farmers crop yield to produce more food with less land, help farmers farm more sustainably and help the produce retain more nutrients.

Sally Bornbusch

Let's start where the food starts-the ground.

Katie Cruz

First, some examples of genetically modified organisms (or, GMOs) used for farming purposes: Roundup Ready Corn, pesticide and pest-resistant crops. These are beneficial because without these, more crops would die which means farming production would be down. Farmers today already struggle to feed the constantly growing population as it is, with lower production world hunger rates would be through the roof.

When you get down to it, everything is genetically modified.

Delia Johnson

For example, selective breeding is genetically modifying an animal's young from the way it would naturally be for the best product from the animal. So breeding cows for the best beef quality is a form of genetic modification. The banana is a genetic modification from a plantain. The corn we all know and love today is totally different than its original state two thousand years ago because of genetic modification. GMOs surround us and we don't even realize it.

GMO's increase farmers food production = more food for us = less hunger = less hanger.

Maya Konstantino

Genetically modified organisms decrease the rate of human suffering due to malnutrition and disease. GMOs are considered a major bio technical advancement in agriculture because of its ability to help grow more at a faster rate and keep the nutritional value of the food in for a longer period of time.

Don't overthink it, science approves.

Sami Reinhard

While research and factual evidence show GMOs are in no way harmful, a two year study by USA Today has proven anti-GMO shoppers aren't ready to give up the trend. Non-GMO advocates claim they're looking for "purity" in their food. This study found genetically modified crops have not caused increases in cancer, obesity, autism or any other sicknesses or health risks.

Don't avoid GMOs.

Choose healthy, whole foods that will benefit you regardless if there's a 'GMO-free' label or not. And if you're not into the whole health thing, then choose whatever foods make you happy and satisfied but don't avoid GMOs just because that's trending and others are. Above all else, always do your own research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMOs are a misconception among health gurus and foodies alike. So, what is the brutally honest truth about GMOs? Are they really as harmful as some claim? To put it simply, no. They're not harmful but actually quite beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
Topic of article-

"Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains"

Title of article- "The Plate"
Who- April Fulton, Maryn McKenna, Tracie McMilan, and Rebecca Rupp
What- saftey of GMO's
When- May 17th, 2016
Where- The U.S., and in Illinois, farmers are producing non-GMO food.
Why- GMO food is food that can be injected with nutrients that may or may not be better for you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Tamar Haspel

Genetically-engineered crops are as safe to eat as their non-GE counterparts, they have no adverse environmental impacts, and they have reduced the use of pesticides. That's according to a comprehensive report released by the National Academy of Sciences today-a group founded by the U.S. Congress to provide expert scientifically-based advice on a wide variety of issues.

But the academy also found that GE or (genetically-modified organisms or GMO) crops didn't increase those crops' potential yields, and they did lead to widespread and expensive problems with herbicide-resistant weeds.

The report acknowledges that beyond safety, other issues need to be addressed, including earning the public's trust. It recommends a more transparent and inclusive conversation about GE crops going forward.

The report, two years in the making, is a 388-page, comprehensive look at every aspect of genetically engineered crops. "Sweeping statements about GE crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional," the report says right up front, and goes on to dig deep on those dimensions.

The assessment is generally positive, but there are many caveats and notes of caution. For those of you who want just the big takeaways, here's the nutshell version:

GE crops are safe to eat. There is always uncertainty about safety, of course, but there's no evidence of harm.

The GE crops in our food system don't improve on the crops' potential yields. They have, however, helped farmer protect yields from insects and weeds.

Both herbicide-tolerant crops and crops with the organic pesticide Bt built in have decreased pesticide use, although those decreases came early on, and some have not been sustained.

Increased use of glyphosate, the herbicide GE crops tolerate, has been responsible for a widespread and expensive problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

The report found no adverse affects on biodiversity or danger from interbreeding between GE crops and wild relatives.

Although both the use of GE crops and the employment of farming techniques that reduce tilling have been on the rise, the report finds no cause-and-effect relationship.

The economic benefits to farmers have been well-documented, although individual results vary.

Small-scale farmers may have trouble seeing those economic gains because of the price of seed and lack of access to credit.

Appropriate regulation is imperative, and that regulation should be based on the characteristics of the crop, rather than the technique used to develop it, whether GE or non-GE.

Ongoing public conversations about GE crops and related issues should be characterized by transparency and public participation.

The report also notes that both genetic engineering and conventional breeding are important to crop improvement. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, and treating them "as competing approaches is a false dichotomy; more progress in crop improvement can be brought about by using both ... than by using either alone." (See Can This Scientist Unite Genetic Engineers and Organic Farmers?)

For those of you who interested in chapter and verse of the report, here is soup-to-nuts rundown of the committee's findings:
Human Health
The committee doesn't find evidence the consumption of the GE foods currently in our food supply increase food allergies, have significant effects on the GI tract, or pose a risk for horizontal gene transfer.

It also doesn't find spikes in health problems like autism, obesity, cancer, and kidney disease that correlate to the introduction of GE foods.

The committee acknowledges small differences in gut microbes in some animal experiments, but conclude that GE foods "are not expected to cause health problems."

On allergenicity, the committee recognizes that "[t]here are limits to what can be known about the health effects of any food, whether it is produced through conventional breeding alone or in conjunction with genetic engineering."

All in all, the report concludes, "no differences have been found that implicate a higher risk to human health and safety from these GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts." But the committee is also careful to say that there are limits to what we can know. Any new food, whether GE or not, "may have some subtle favorable or adverse health effects that are not detected even with careful scrutiny and that health effects can develop over time."

The report's discussion of human health also includes some optimism that both GE and non-GE crops with increased concentrations of some nutrients could have "favorable effects on the health of millions of people."
Crop Yields
The report distinguishes between the potential yields of crops (that is, the maximum yield, under ideal conditions), and their actual yields (after insects, disease, bad weather, or weeds have their way with them). There's no evidence that GE crops have increased potential yields, which had been steadily increasing before GE crops were introduced, and continued to increase afterward.

GE crops can, however, help protect yields from pests.
Pesticide Use
Crops with a built-in organic pesticide called Bt have not just reduced insecticide spraying on the acres they're planted on, they have, in some cases (like that of the European corn borer), reduced the pest population so dramatically that insecticide spraying has gone down on non-GE acreage.

The report notes, however, that insects can develop resistance to Bt (some have). To head that off, proper management (including refuges, which are areas where Bt crops aren't planted so insects don't develop resistance) is essential, and the report expresses concern about the "lack of compliance with the mandated refuges." Crops engineered with an insecticide work as a part of a pest-management strategy, but they aren't, by themselves, the solution to insect problems.

For crops that are tolerant to glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, the story gets more complicated. While those crops initially decreased overall herbicide use, the report says those decreases have not been sustained. The committee also specifically rejects the measurement of herbicide application (kilograms per acre or hectare) as meaningful, because some herbicides are more toxic than others. and suggests that "researchers should be discouraged" from reporting those numbers.

The downside of herbicide tolerant crops is that, "in many locations some weeds have evolved resistance to glyphosate." The report cites one study that puts the cost of managing glyphosate-resistant weeds at $66/acre for corn and $22/acre for soy, an amount that can sometimes make the difference between a positive and negative gross margin.

Better weed management has to go hand-in-hand with the deployment of herbicide-tolerant plants, the report finds.
Biodiversity and Environmental Impact
The report addressed a varied group of concerns related to how GE crops interact with the environment. Here are the committee's findings.

There's no evidence of adverse effects of Bt crops on honeybees.

Although crop rotation and crop diversity have been declining since 1987, the report didn't find a cause-and-effect relationship with GE crops. The committee did note that some GE varieties can facilitate "successful management of very large areas of these crops without rotation." On the other hand, the committee considered evidence that GE crops could enable crop rotations that would be "prohibitively difficult or expensive" without the weed control that comes with herbicide-tolerant crops.

Research has not shown that "suppression of milkweed by glyphosate is the cause of monarch decline," but researchers disagree about whether glyphosate has any impact on monarchs.

‪Although there has been gene flow from GE crops to wild relatives, "no examples have demonstrated an adverse environmental effect."

The report couldn't find a clear cause-and-effect relationship between herbicide-tolerant crops and no-till farming practices.

Social and Economic Effects
The report makes the point that, when we're talking about introducing a new kind of crop into our food system, we have to look beyond matters of human and environmental health, and take social and economic issues into consideration:

‪Overall GE crops have worked out well, economically, for the farmers who have chosen them, but there's a lot of variation in outcomes. Insect-resistant crops reduce loss to insects, and herbicide-tolerant crops "tend to reduce management time."

Benefits of GE crops aren't always available to small-scale farmers, because of the high price of seed and inadequate access to credit, "among other institutional issues"

For small-scale farmers to get the economic gains of GE crops, they'll often need "institutional support, such as access to credit, affordable inputs, extension services, and markets." They may need assistance "improving soil fertility, increasing nutrient availability, and optimizing plant density"

Regulatory barriers have raised the price of developing GE crops, which makes it more difficult for the private sector to develop crops that aren't widely planted. This works against having a diverse selection of GE crops.

The report notes that some studies have suggested that GE crops "contribute to farmer deskilling."

It's important to prevent the inadvertent presence of GE crops in non-GE fields, for both social and economic reasons. "Farmers want the freedom to decide what crops to grow," and non-GE crops command a higher price. The committee notes that this is often happening: "many areas are successfully growing organic, non-GE, and GE crops."

One important economic issue is trade disruption. As different countries approve different GE crops at different times, trading becomes complicated. "Trade disruptions ... are likely to continue to occur and to be expensive for exporting and importing countries."

‪The report also tackles the very fundamental issue of trust. It's "difficult to capture the cost of a loss of public trust in a product, an industry, or the legitimacy of a regulatory system."

Regulation
The report says that regulation of GE crops "should facilitate achieving the maximum societal benefits ... at given levels of acceptable risk." The committee acknowledges that it's a tall order, because both risks and benefits vary among crops. NAS is clear that it is the product-not the process-that should be regulated.

Other regulatory issues include:

Patents (of both GE and non-GE crops) can limit access by "small farmers, marketers, and plant breeders who lack resources to pay licensing fees or to mount legal challenges," and there's disagreement over whether patents facilitate or hinder "knowledge-sharing, innovation, and the commercialization of useful goods." The report predicts that technology "that is of most use to small-scale farmers or farmers of specialty crops will probably have to emerge from public-sector institutions or from public-private collaborations" because the incentives aren't there for industry to work on those crops.

Although the labeling issue is complex and there are "strong nonsafety arguments and considerable public support for mandatory labeling," the committee "does not believe that mandatory labeling of foods with GE content is justified to protect public health."

"Policy regarding GE crops has scientific, legal, and social dimensions, ad not all issues can be answered by science alone." The values and priorities of all stakeholders have to be considered.

‪Regulators need to be proactive communicators, and "transparency and public participation" are "critically important for appropriate, sound, and credible governance."

"The lack of public access to the health and safety data submitted by developers creates distrust in some stakeholders" because "the public cannot judge for itself the quality, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the materials submitted." While the committee recognizes "the legitimacy of the confidential nature of business information," it urges as much sharing as possible.

Looking Forward
The report sees an important role for genetic engineering, and "the committee expects that its potential use in crop improvement in the coming decades will be substantial." Increased nutrition, better nutrient use, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and pathogen resistance are just some of the ways GE crops can improve human and environmental health, farmer well-being, and agriculture's sustainability, it says.
Tamar Haspel is a food and science journalist. She can be reached on Twitter @TamarHaspel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Tamar Haspel Genetically-engineered crops are as safe to eat as their non-GE counterparts, they have no adverse environmental impacts, and they have reduced the use of pesticides. That's according to a comprehensive report released by the National Academy of Sciences today-a group founded by the U.S.