Science and common man-Vested interest vs truthful facts vs human health

The world has not come to a consensus regarding the risks or advantages inherent in adopting genetically modified food crops. What is tragic is that there is a clear cut division between pro and anti GMO people whether consumers, scientists or policy makers on the safety of GMO foods. America is in the forefront in allowing unrestricted use of GMO technology and practically every food product in the market there is either based on GMO derived raw material or GMO ingredients. Their stand is that there is no substantial difference between natural and GMO derived foods and therefore no separate approval is necessary for using them as ingredients or as foods for consumption. Many other countries take a different stand and there is either a total ban or limited clearance for some of the GMO foods created by MNC giants like Monsanto through gene manipulation technologies. It is the unfortunate that the consumer is caught between the proverbial "deep sea and the devil", not knowing what is the truth?

There are three issues that confront policy makers before considering giving clearance to GM crops and a balanced decision is possible only when all facts and real truth are placed before them. Science is a truth chasing activity and scientists cannot be expected to say any thing but truth. Unfortunately it has been proved time and again that some scientists are "purchasable" at right prices! That is why there is a wide chasm in opinions within the scientific community itself. First consumer would like to know whether GM foods are safe to consume on a long term basis and whether the exiting knowledge is sufficient to make him accept these foods for himself as well as his family including kids. Second issue is whether there is really any advantage to the farmer in terms of economic gains so that the technology can be adopted in the field level. Finally the third stake holder viz the regulatory authorities need to know what advantages or dangers the country will have by switching over to GMO crops without any restriction or control, long term as well as short term duration.

What is the ground reality to day? First there is no unanimity among scientists that GM foods are as safe as they are made out to be and practically no human studies on a long term basis have ever been undertaken as of to day. What consequence consumption of diets predominated by GM foods will have for future generations is also a grey area. The contention that Americans have been eating GM foods since long is an argument that is not objective enough to pass a judgement on this issue. Second the claim of increased yield has not been conclusively demonstrated universally in any meaningful way though in some crops it might be true. Here again to claim that the net yield for the farmer would more because of reduced losses due to insects and other vectors probably will not be sufficient to convince any body. Third, the prevalent seed regeneration practices  which has been the traditional way of perpetuating agriculture in countries like India need to be replaced with a monopolistic seed supply system, makes the farmer captive slaves of international business corporates and this makes the farmers extremely vulnerable to price manipulations and expose him to a "siege" environment which is not a desirable change. 

Recently there was a massive meta analysis of data available in the public domain on GM crops and according to this study GM crops are good for developing countries, not for developed ones! Read the excerpts from this report below:

"The "pro" side in the debate over the benefit of genetically modified foods got a big boost from science this month, with an international study funded by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union's Seventh Framework Program FOODSECURE concluding that GM crops are good for the economy and reduce the amount of pesticides used in agriculture.  The German study is the largest review ever conducted on the effect of GM crops on farming. It is a meta-analysis, meaning a rigorous study of the numbers inside past studies on the topic. The review included studies of GM crops conducted from 1995 to March 2014 that were published in English. Published Nov. 3 in PLOS ONE, the peer-reviewed, open-access publication for the Public Library of Science, the meta-analysis found that GM crops are a "promising technology." According to the authors, GM crops have reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops, they reported. And in a conclusion that contradicts those who've argued GM crops are not right for the developing world, the authors found that yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Authors Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper, both of Germany's Gottingen University, said they hope their research will help build public trust for GM technology. In a world that will be challenged to increased food production to meet future population growth, the study found GM crop yields can be increased by 14 percentage points more in the developing world than in the developed world. Pests and weeds are a bigger problem in developing nations, another reason GM technology brings bigger benefits there. Commercial GM crops include those that are modified to increase resistance to pests, to glyphosates or to herbicides used for weed control. The German study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while insect-resistant ones do not. In that case, the need for less pesticide is offset by the higher seed prices, the study showed. 

The fact that this study had the blessings of European Union and the German government makes it a compelling report worth reading by every dispassionate denizen, curious about the subject of GM foods without being a party to the controversy. Whether this report satisfies the criteria enunciated by this Blogger above is subject o debate but one thing is certain that such periodic reports are no substitute to a world wide inter disciplinary scientific study involving some typical, more regularly consumed GM foods, without any controversy or difference of opinion, to conclusively establish whether GM foods are absolutely safe or  at least as safe as their natural counterparts or not. Till such time we have to live with such gimmicks going under the banner of scientific study!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT EATING AND HUMAN HEALTH-NEW FINDINGS

From time immemorial there has been a persistent question whether human beings are designed to eat meat and it continues to be a raging debate even to day. Looking back in history eating of animal foods got established only after the advent of Christianity while vegetarianism ruled the world during millennium preceding this era. If one probes further back man was transformed into a hunter with omnivorous instincts millions of years ago. Vegans and thorough bred vegetarians swear by the non-essentiality of animal based food products as plant kingdom provide adequate nutrition and health protecting substances for a long life of high quality. In contrast meat foods with high density of nutrients like iron, proteins and many micro nutrients but have the handicap of containing high levels of artery clogging saturated fat. Meat is also devoid the much needed dietary fiber for which humans will have to fall back on plant foods.If these are the stark realities what should be the choice before an intelligent consumer? it may be too much to expect a simple consumer to understand the complexities of the situation and take a life-time decision. Many campaigns and organized programs across the world have not made much of a dent on the extent of meat consumption though there are significant converts to vegetarianism during the last few years. 

One of the tenets of peace on this earth is non-violence, be it against fellow humans or co-inhabitants that live along with them and if this philosophy takes hold on the lives of people, it is possible that one day the whole planet will adopt vegetarianism. But for this to achieve there are a number of interconnected issue which are to be sorted out. Under such an environment what will happen to the trillion dollar industry that piles money killing billions of animals including poultry bird, cows, buffaloes, sheep and goat and pigs? Is it logical to expect these "high muscled" players to give in so easily to the demands made by vegetarian champions? Take the example of a country like India where killing of cows is considered a crime and there are millions of cows with no economic value sought to be protected at enormous cost while the very same cows are slaughtered in millions every day in many countries predominantly beef eating in nature! If governments all over the world are subscribing the view that jungles, forests and wild animals need protection why not the same principle apply to domesticated animals also? A clear dichotomy indeed!

During these days of so much hype generated over climate changes taking place due to many human activities and unlimited burning of fossil fuels, a little noticed aspect is the role meat eaters play in further aggravating the present intolerable situation. There have been high pitch noises coming out of climate control conferences held periodically which any how do not serve any useful purpose with developed countries demanding "sacrifices" from poor developing countries to cut down emissions thus tramping on latter's aspiration to achieve economic prosperity for their citizens. It is unfortunate that these countries where meat eating practice is omnipotent, do not introspect the damage meat consumption is doing for the health of their citizens as well as that of the environment. According knowledgeable experts if Americans can switch over to vegetarian diets, the reduction of green gas emission will be far more substantial than that managed by changing their fossil fuel cars to hybrid versions. It was in 2008 world realized that meat based diets contribute seven times as much green house gas emission as vegetarian diet does!     

According to diet and health experts across the world "a properly planned vegetarian diet is healthy, nutritionally adequate and provides health benefits to prevent diseases" and it has been proved beyond doubt that vegetarian population has lower Body Mass Index, lower cholesterol, lower incidence of blood pressure and hypertension and fewer cases of disorders  Ischemic Heart Disease, renal damage, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. International Vegetarian Union, started in 1908, relentlessly works for convincing people to shun meat foods and become healthy without most of the diseases associated with meat consumption. why is that meat is not good for humans? Because raw meat, it has been confirmed by a number of studies, can reduce the life expectancy by 13%, increase the chances of death from CVD by 18% and that by cancer by 10%. The risk factors get further enhanced if processed meat consumption and its consequence are critically assessed. Processed meat consumption can decrease life expectancy by 20%, by CVD by 21% and cancer by 16%.  

An innocuous piece of news which appeared recently which caught the attention of many critical observers about the loss of sweet sensing ability among some carnivorous animals, domesticated as well as in wild due to gene mutation over a long time which may have some implications in human evolution. The two sweet receptor genes Tas1r2 and Tas1r3 if do not find expression the ability to taste and enjoy sweetness is permanently lost. Disturbingly such mutation has taken its toll due to predominant consumption of meat. What could be the implication of these findings on humans on a long term basis? Is it possible that humans who are non-vegetarians also lose their sweet tasting ability in future over a long period? Or will the drug industry come out with a prescription drug that can make the sweet receptor genes redundant? Can such a situation bring down the incidence of diseases associated with too much consumption of sugar? May not be practical but not impossible!     

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com