Genetically Engineered Foods and Allergenicity

Mother Jones recently published an article highlighting a new outlook on genetically engineered salmon and its relationship to allergies. It's suggested that although this GM salmon will grow twice as fast and help preserve wild salmon resources, it can potentially be much more allergenic. For currently allergic persons this can mean more severe reactions to smaller amounts; it can also cause the appearance of allergies in those people currently nonallergic.  Either way, the resulting influence of genetically engineered foods, whether salmon or corn, on food allergenicity is bound to be negative. The article explains in further detail the process of genetically modifying foods and how allergenic properties are appearing in traditionally unexpected places and in more concentrated amounts.

GM Salmon

As a food studies student class presentations usually include food or beverages to supplement them since all our paper topics revolve around food. This last semester for my Food History class, one girl brought in salad to accompany her "History of Salad" presentation.  I, being my usual ravenous self, dove right in and proceeded to devour the delicious salad. It wasn't until I was scraping up the last few pieces that my friend mentioned something about the taste of anchovies. The presenter confirmed. Oops. A few minutes passed and all I had were tingly gums and lips. But no hives, no swelling, no nausea later. What does this mean? Can I eat Caesar Salad? I have not once tasted that American classic. What is it about anchovies that doesn't cause the serious reaction? Why are they different? All these questions are still unanswered, but hopefully in response to the Times debate more answers will soon be appearing. I suppose I may be trying a bite of Caesar Salad soon. As for now, I guess that was a freebie.

Responses to the NY Times Article

Here are some great responses to the Times article I previously posted. I'm so glad to see this topic getting so much press and being debated publicly!


http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/the-squishy-science-of-food-allergies/

Another Great New Article

Alright, my argument is finally somewhat mainstream - I knew I was onto something! The big guys at NY Times ran an article yesterday, May 11th, titled "Doubt is Cast on Many Reports of Food Allergies". I highly suggest everyone read it. Now, if we can only get more research and studies as to how this problem can be fixed...  

Let's keep the exposure to this issue going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/health/research/12allergies.html?hp

WSJ Article- thank goodness

I know that I can appear insensitive when it comes to other peoples "allergies", but I now have even more valid support in my argument! I have long believed that food allergy tests can cause paranoia and overreaction among many people, specifically parents. Am I really allergic to rice, rye and corn? I highly doubt it. I attempted to cut out certain foods to see if it affected me in any minor way, and so far I have come up empty handed. I have eaten corn my entire life and never once have had any sort of reaction whatsoever. Luckily, I understand the potential lack of validity that can occur with the use of food allergy skin testing. However, others may not quite understand this concept and take the test results to the extreme.  This is a huge annoyance for me, as I actually know what happens when one is really allergic to foods... hives, itchy throat, gastrointestinal upset, anaphylactic shock, etc etc. The tests are great, don't get me wrong, but the results need to be managed in a realistic way. It is also important for people to understand the severity of their allergies. Believing the same reaction will occur with every varied allergy is a naive assumption. Also, many allergies (especially pollen, dander etc.) can transform over time, becoming less or more severe. It is important for the minor positives on skin tests to be examined in a realistic way. Perhaps if enough people begin to understand what is meant through the results of these tests, we will be better able to serve those with real, legitimate allergies. And I will no longer feel like a bitch for being annoyed at what is rather a false positive or intolerance (that's a whole other situation).

Here is the link to the Wall Street Journal article (under Health 1/26), hopefully opening up the subject to further investigation and exposure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025013194645130.html