Most of that ends up as animal feed, ethanol, or corn syrup — and corn syrup gets into lots of foods. Cotton, sugar beets, and canola are also common genetically modified crops. Roughly 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores contain at least some genetically modified ingredients.
Animals are a slightly different story. Companies have also used genetic engineering to create certain enzymes and hormones for cheese and milk production. In , more than 12 percent of global farmland million hectares was given over to GM crops, although growth appears to be slowing:.
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all.
One major exception is fresh fruits and veggies. No meat, fish, and poultry products approved for direct human consumption are bioengineered at this point , though most of the feed for livestock and fish is derived from GM corn, alfalfa, and other biotech grains.
Only organic varieties of these animal products are guaranteed GMO-free feed. So what are some examples of food that are genetically modified? Papayas: In the s, Hawaiian papaya trees were plagued by the ringspot virus which decimated nearly half the crop in the state.
In , scientists developed a transgenic fruit called Rainbow papaya, which is resistant to the virus. Now 77 percent of the crop grown in Hawaii is genetically engineered GE. Milk: RGBH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a GE variation on a naturally occurring hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. Many milk brands that are rGBH-free label their milk as such, but as much as 40 percent of our dairy products , including ice cream and cheese, contains the hormone.
Corn on the cob: While 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, most of that crop is used for animal feed or ethanol and much of the rest ends up in processed foods. Sweet corn—the stuff that you steam or grill on the barbecue and eat on the cob—was GMO-free until last year when Monsanto rolled out its first GE harvest of sweet corn.
Squash and zucchini : While the majority of squashes on the market are not GE, approximately 25, acres of crookneck, straightneck, and zucchinis have been bioengineered to be virus resistant. Right now there is no strict definition of what constitutes a natural food.
This could be changing soon as federal court judges recently requested the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether the term can be used to describe foods containing GMOs to help resolve pending class action suits against General Mills, Campbell Soup Co. The crop has since been removed from the market. Postgraduate degree-holders are more inclined to say GM foods are very likely to increase the global food supply and to lead to more affordably priced food than those with less education.
Public views of scientists and their understanding about the health risks and benefits of GM foods are mixed and, often, skeptical. Most Americans perceive considerable disagreement among scientific experts about whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. While most people trust scientists more than they trust each of several other groups to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods, only a minority of the public says they have a lot of trust in scientists to do this.
At the same time, most Americans say that scientists should have a major role in policy decisions about GM foods, but so, too, should small farm owners and the general public. Fewer Americans say that food industry leaders should play a major role at the policy-making table. But views of scientists connected with GM foods are often similar among those who with deep personal concern about the issue of GM foods and those with less concern.
Differences are more pronounced between these groups when it comes to views of industry influence on scientific research findings and trust in food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods. In other respects, people with deeper concern about this issue vary only modestly from other Americans in their views of scientists and the scientific research on GM foods. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded there was no persuasive evidence that genetically engineered crops have caused health or environmental problems.
For example, those who view GM foods as worse for health are especially inclined to say that there is little agreement among scientists about the safety of GM foods. Past Pew Research Center studies have found a similar pattern when it comes to perceptions of scientific consensus and beliefs about climate change as well as beliefs about evolution. Across all levels of concern about this issue, few see broad consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe to eat. Similarly, people who have heard or read a lot about GM foods are far more likely than those who have heard or read nothing about this issue to see consensus among scientists that GM foods are safe.
About one-third of Americans say scientists understand the risks and benefits of eating GM foods not too well or not at all well. Those who perceive broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods are more likely to think scientists understand this topic. By comparison, fewer people who do not care at all or not too much about this issue give scientists high marks for their understanding of the health effects of GM foods.
Although, roughly similar shares of each group say that scientists understand the effects of GM foods at least fairly well. As noted above, those who care a great deal about the issue of GM foods are also a bit more likely than others to see scientists as agreeing that GM foods are generally safe to eat. Americans are, comparatively speaking, more trusting of information from scientists and small farm owners on the safety of GM foods than they are of information from food industry leaders, the news media or elected officials.
In absolute terms, however, Americans are somewhat skeptical of information from scientists. About one-in-five say they do not trust information from scientists at all or not too much.
Public trust in information on the effects of GM foods from the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials is much lower. No more than one-in-ten Americans trust each of these groups a lot; majorities say they have no trust or not too much trust in the news media, food industry leaders and elected officials to give full and accurate information about the health effects of GM foods.
People who care more deeply about this issue express a similar level of trust in scientists as those with less concern about the issue of GM foods.
However, people deeply concerned about the issue of GM foods are especially skeptical of information from food industry leaders. The public offers a mixed assessment of what influences research from scientists on GM foods.
Many Americans are skeptical that the best available evidence commonly influences research findings on GM foods. People more engaged in the issue of GM foods are particularly skeptical about the possibility of industry influence on scientific research findings. Those less engaged in the issue of GM foods are much less inclined to say that industry interests often influence science research. Although there only modest differences in perceptions of risk from eating GM foods among people with high, medium or low levels of science knowledge, those with higher science knowledge tend to assess scientists and their research on GM foods more favorably than those with less knowledge.
Americans with high science knowledge are especially trusting of information from scientists on the effects of eating GM foods. Like other Americans, those with high science knowledge have low trust in information from food industry leaders to give full and accurate information about the effects of GM foods. Despite some skepticism among the public about scientists working on GM foods, most of the public wants scientists to have a seat at the policymaking table.
Six-in-ten U. Majorities also support major roles for small farmers and the general public in policy decisions related to GM foods.
0コメント