People who know the least about science have the strongest opinions about it, according to recent results from public surveys in the US, France, and Germany published in The Guardian. While this article was specific to GMOs, it is emblematic of a growing, misinformed distrust towards science among the public. My goal for this column is to help you, the reader, regain this trust as well as provide the tools and knowledge to make more informed decisions in your life. Also, I would use this opportunity to provide updates on what the latest innovations in science mean for humanity.
In this article, I will address the controversy over GMOs through examining both the truths and myths to inform you in the best way possible. First, what is a GMO? GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms, which include bacteria, mammals, fish, insects and plants, whose DNA has been artificially altered in a laboratory by either inserting, removing, or modifying genes. This technique has been used to promote herbicide tolerance, confer insect and virus resistance, alter fat content, and enrich vitamin concentrations. The most commonly engineered foods include livestock, soybeans, cotton, canola, and maize/corn. Future applications of GMO technology would be to produce vaccines from plants, make food mature faster, engineer algae to produce biofuel, grow human organs for transplant recipients, and find plant alternatives to use in tissue replacement or surgery. So why are so many people against them?
Much of the controversy with GMOs revolves around the idea that genetically manipulating food like this has never been done before. Therefore, how can the effects GMOs on human health and the environment in the long term be fully understood? People should have a right to know which foods they eat are genetically modified. This is the main objective of the Non-GMO Project, and these concerns are valid. The Non-GMO project cites an article published in Environmental Science Europe claiming that there is “no scientific consensus on GMO safety.” Anti-GMO advocates worry genetically modified foods might provoke allergies, or altered genes could transfer to human cells when ingested. However, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest these risks can be caused by consuming GMOs. Most scientists agree GMO crops pose no greater risk to our health than traditional food. For instance, a literature review article published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology covering a decade of GMO safety research has indicated GMO crops do not pose significant hazards to humans. Furthermore, the article points out the media has distorted the scientific critique of the papers cited in these reviews, and these misinterpretations have been used politically and in anti-GMO campaigns. This could be one of the reasons for the growing popularity of the Non-GMO Project. But this campaign argues these studies may be biased, “performed by biotechnology companies and their associates.”
Nevertheless, some people argue that GMOs can negatively impact the environment and farmers. In support, The National Farmers Union of Canada states, “Over the past decade, corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks; and … consumers and foreign customers alike do not want these crops. It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions, and their use is creating problems – agronomic, environmental, economic, social, and (potentially) human health problems.”
Many of the previous concerns are valid. Companies like Monsanto design crops to make farmers dependent on their services and products, which often are very expensive. Today, it is extremely hard for certain farmers to grow non-GMO products because most seeds sold on the market are genetically modified. For example, certain companies engineer crops to be infertile, requiring farmers to rebuy the seeds every year. They also sue farmers through complicated litigation loopholes if they try to leave the GMO industry. However, many farmers also see increased profits from the use of these products. Consequently, according the the Non-GMO project, there are conflicting results as to whether GMOs benefit or hurt farmers.
The environment has been impacted by the use of GMO crops. The Non-GMO Project argues they increase pesticide use due to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, claiming pesticide use has increased by about 7% since their introduction in the market. Further, the insecticides engineered into these plants target beneficial organisms like butterflies, pest predators, and bees, and also can negatively impact biodiversity needed to support a healthy ecosystem. Also, the Non-GMO Project claims these crops require the same if not more energy to grow and maintain, which goes against claims saying GMOs reduce energy consumption. Scientists argue the previous arguments are all valid, but these problems arise with conventional crops as well; this indicates the environmental impacts should be blamed on modern agriculture practices as a whole rather than just GMOs and hopefully urge us to reexamine how we grow our food.
While the Non-GMO Project does have considerable arguments surrounding impacts on the environment and farmers, conflicting findings exist. Claiming GMOs are bad for your health is misleading and false. Unfortunately, monopolies like Monsanto can take advantage of farmers and the farming industry as a whole and disregard their own environmental impacts. GMOs have the power to do more good than harm. When trying to support a growing population, especially in the face of climate change, engineering food to have higher yields, shorter growth times, better nutritional content, and expanded growing climates might be the best way to accommodate these societal and environmental changes. I acknowledge not everyone will agree with me, which is okay because not all scientists agree with each other. Science and critique go hand in hand, and I hope after reading my article you walk away with a newfound understanding of GMOs. •
