Navigating the GMO Maze Part I

For quite a while now, I have been unsure about where I stand when it comes to so-called GMOs: genetically modified organisms. People seem to take an extreme stance on this topic, whether pro or anti-genetic engineering. According to many of these vocal advocates, either we have no choice but to turn to genetic engineering or die of starvation as the earth gets warmer and  more populated, or we’re poisoning ourselves and the environment by consuming genetically modified food. When you hear from each side, both are convincing, but both are unavoidably biased. It’s kind of like comparing accounts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Israelis and Palestinians. I struggled to find an unbiased source of information, but I believe I found a few, which I will provide for your reference. I will now share with you what I’ve gathered, not to convince you of anything, but to try to clear this emotional haze surrounding what is primarily just another technology we have to approach cautiously like any other. I’m doing this in two parts so as not to overwhelm you. 

Let’s start with a definition, because some of you may not know exactly what a GMO is, even though I’m sure you’ve heard of them by now. In simple terms, a scientist genetically modifies a food by taking a gene from one organism that promotes a desirable trait–or silences an undesirable one–and inserting it into another organism. To give you the most relevant examples, upwards of 95% of the corn and soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered. The corn has been modified with a gene from a bacterium to produce an insecticide known as Bt. The farmers don’t have to spend money or time spraying insecticides on the corn to keep away pests. The soy has been modified to resist an herbicide called Roundup. This is desirable because farmers can spray the herbicide throughout the growth of the soy to kill weeds without harming their crops. I believe a significant percentage of sugar beets are also genetically engineered (GE) now, as well as canola grown in Canada. These are the only widespread examples of genetically engineered food that have been on the market for at least two decades now. 

Because these crops are so widespread, expect to find them in all animal products (because most of the GMO corn and soy goes to animal feed) and processed food that isn’t marked organic or non-GMO. 

A lot of people are under the impression that there is something inherent in the genetic engineering of a food that makes it harmful to ingest. There simply is not scientific evidence to suggest that this is true. Granted, I have not perused the research myself, but I have read the reports, blogs, and news articles of experts who have, or who have interviewed scientists who have. People have been consuming GE corn and soy for literally decades now, and no one has been acutely, or chronically at this point, been harmed by virtue of the genetic engineering of the product. There are all kinds of problems with the abundance and cheapness of corn and soy in the food supply, but that’s another story. 

Because of the imprecision of genetic engineering, a scientist can never be sure of the exact effect a gene will have when transferred from one organism to another. This means that there is always some level of risk of creating a harmful crop. For instance, there was a group of scientists at one point who transferred a gene from a brazil nut to a soybean. If consumed by a person with an allergy to a brazil nut, the reaction could have been extremely serious, even fatal. This sounds terrifying, right? Good thing that safety testing revealed this problem, and the crop was never commercialized. 

Something people don’t realize is that any risks that come with genetic engineering are probably also risks involved with more conventional plant breeding techniques. Farmers have been selectively breeding plants to try to promote desirable traits for a very long time now. Scientists have been mutagenizing plants’ DNA randomly to find desirable traits for longer than GMOs have been around. These techniques are less precise and just as likely to produce a harmful crop as genetic engineering, but no one complains about them. 

You may hear from anti-GMO activists that safety testing for GMOs by the federal government is voluntary and not mandatory. Evidently, though, these regulations are only voluntary in theory. No company has skipped safety testing a new GMO product, because the FDA could pull it off the market if they did. 

There are some problems with the regulation of GMOs, however. The testing is done by the company independently, not the government agency responsible for assuring safety, and the specific testing is determined on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA were to require mandatory pre-market approval that was open to public review, there would be a greater assurance of safety and greater public confidence in the technology. It is also illegal as of now to require the recording of all products containing GMOs, so if there were a problem, it would be very difficult to trace. 

There are clearly kinks that need to be worked out, but they are more in the regulatory system than the scientific one. Know for now that you can keep eating your favorite snacks without worrying about the transgenic ingredients poisoning you. 

For Part II, I’ll go into the environmental consequences of GMOs and whether GMOs only have advantages for corporations. Hope I’ve given you something to think about for now! 



4 thoughts on “Navigating the GMO Maze Part I

  1. Pingback: Navigating the GMO Maze Part II | Don't Weight For Change

  2. Genetic engineering of crop plants, as currently practiced, is more mutagenic than mutation breeding…a fact that zealous proponents of the technology inevitably fail to mention. Genetic engineers have no control over where in a crop’s DNA their foreign genes will land and they often, 30-60% of the time, land in an endogenous gene, mutating it; mutation breeders aim for a mutation rate of about 3%. So the imprecision of genetic engineering is not just associated with how the foreign gene will “behave” in the organism it has been inserted into, as suggested in this post (and as occurred in the commercialized GE StarLinkTM corn variety in which the GE Bt protein “behaved” in lab tests like a human allergen), it is also associated with the process of genetic engineering itself. Even if the inserted gene “behaved” exactly as the genetic engineer wanted it to, other unexpected, unintended changes could occur to the DNA of the GE crop plant that could affect its physiology in negative ways.

    That’s why it’s so important that regulation of GE crops should be mandatory, not voluntary.

    And how can you (or anyone else) be so sure that there have been no examples of GE food crops commercialized without having gone through the voluntary consultation process with FDA? Without labels on these products (or individually testing every plant-containing product in the marketplace) there is no way to be sure. It has already been reported, on the other hand, that Scotts Miracle-Gro Company can legally test and commercialize some of its GE grasses without undergoing any regulation with the USDA; USDA only has jurisdiction over GE crops produced with or containing components of pests on its “plant pest” list. That’s a pretty flimsy jurisdiction when genetic engineers can create GE crops using genes from any organism, dead or alive (if the DNA is in good enough shape) or with genes wholly made in a lab; in fact, basing USDA regulation on “plant pests” is illogical and, frankly, non-scientific.

    I obviously agree with you that there are kinks in especially the U.S. system for regulating GE crops, foods and feeds but the science of genetic engineering is imperfect as well. The system for regulating the products of this powerful technology not only needs an overhaul but should also take better heed of those scientific imperfections.

    • Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I completely agree that the regulations for genetic engineering need to be much more rigorous. I am under the impression, though, that other breeding techniques can be just as imprecise, so they should be regulated just as closely. You’re right, I guess I can’t be sure that there are no products that haven’t gone through the voluntary consultation, especially without labeling or record-keeping, another reason why those should be mandatory. I got that information from this very well-researched article:
      I understand your concern about the unknowns of the science. I was trying to emphasize that genetic engineering is one of many technologies with unknowns, and that there is no reason to single this one out so fanatically. For example, I think livestock being fed antibiotics is a much more immediate food safety concern.

  3. Pingback: Channeling Violet Beauregarde | Don't Weight For Change

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s