Genetically Modified Organisms
The dreaded GMOs. *cue dramatic music* How many of you knew that GMO stood for Genetically Modified Organism? I’d be willing to bet at least a couple didn’t know. Why is this?
There is a widespread hatred and distrust of GMOs. I can understand why, and it involves food companies and their profit margins. How many packages do you see at the supermarket that exclaim “NO GMOs!” or “GMO-free!”? More than there should be.
Food companies are making money off the misunderstanding of what a GMO is. By brandishing their claims of non-GMO food without specifying what a GMO is, they perpetuate the idea that there is something inherently wrong with GMOs. I’m here to tell you GMOs are perfectly fine.
As with any scientific advancement, GMOs come with some drawbacks. However, agricultural science is becoming more sophisticated every day, and I have no doubts that these drawbacks will become smaller with time. People forget that the first outcomes of research aren’t typically an all-encompassing solution. A good example is chemotherapy. The early days of chemotherapy were brutal on patients, but it provided a good foundation for continuing research in cancer treatment, and now we have better treatment options that aren’t so harsh.
What exactly is a GMO?
Side note: I’m getting a lot of this information from Scitable, which is a Nature Education website, and is highly reputable. If you’re on the fence about this topic after this post, I suggest you take a few minutes to read it, as I didn’t include everything!
GMOs are selectively curated organisms (typically plants, though other organisms can be used), modified to include certain traits that benefit the product. In terms of plants, this can be in terms of taste, growth rate, crop output, growth conditions, nutrient content, or parasite resistance. In animals, this can be in terms of being hypoallergenic, certain appearances (pugs are a good example), or hairlessness.
I do want to take a minute to make the distinction between genetically modified organisms and hybrids. Hybrids are the results of selective breeding, by assessing certain qualities of plants and animals, and breeding the best two together to create something better. This is done completely outside of the lab, there is no genetic manipulation. It is purely selection based on physical appearances or traits. Some of the examples I include are technically hybrids, but I think hybridization is closely related to genetic modification. Hybridization is the precursor to genetic modifications, as I’m sure scientists were inspired by the selective breeding process. We’ve just made it better.
If you’re a bit confused, I’ll give an example. Seedless watermelon are hybrids. They were developed by examining watermelon crop and choosing the fruits with the fewest amount of seeds. Through systematically breeding watermelon crop like this for a while, eventually they achieved watermelon without any seeds. Comparatively, there are now non-bruising apples being sold in super markets. These apples were made by eliminating a gene in the apple genome. This gene encoded an enzyme that causes fruit to brown when exposed to oxygen, which occurred when apples were dropped (hence the bruising). This was done in a laboratory setting with direct genetic manipulation to create the product. Neither seedless watermelon or these apples are bad for you, they were just created using different modification techniques.
Modifying organisms through hybridization has been going on for centuries, which is something a lot of people don’t realize. What scares people now is that this modification takes place in a laboratory, which can seem intimidating if you don’t really know what’s going on.
A different example is the sad story of the pug. These poor dogs have been put through hell. Pugs have been owned throughout history by the rich and famous, which has led to this obsession with the specific look that pugs have. The squished face, curly tails, tiny body, and comparatively massive eyes are treasured among pug fanatics. These traits that are so cherished are artificial. They have been created and subsequently maintained through selectively inbreeding pugs over and over again, making pugs a hybrid organism. I single the pug problem out to demonstrate that the hybridization technique isn’t inherently bad but can be misused in the wrong hands or wrong circumstances. GMOs aren’t much different from hybrids, and in the correct setting they can produce positive results.
Now, scientists can produce the same results hybridization can produce, but in a much shorter time frame, and likely with greater success. New techniques make modifying the genetics of these organisms easier, thereby allowing for a greater variety of better crops (or animals). Think how quickly seedless watermelon could have been produced! It also means new, unique crops can be made that would not have been possible with just selective breeding. This is the potentially dangerous part, as it could produce something so different it becomes threatening. But, that’s why these experiments are done in a controlled laboratory setting, and any results subjected to FDA (the Food and Drug Administration) approval, to prevent anything dangerous from being created or released into the wild.
Just for some perspective, for all the attention they get, there are only 10 genetically modified crops approved for human consumption. These include corn, soybeans, cotton, potatoes, papaya, squash, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, and (most recently I believe), apples. Most of these GMOs have some sort of disease, pesticide, or herbicide resistance. The apples and some potato varieties are resistant to bruising, and many corn and soybean varieties have modified nutrient profiles (such as modified fatty acid content in soybeans). You can likely find many of these varieties at a local supermarket, either the plant itself or in the ingredients of other food products.
Why are GMOs good?
I’ve hinted at a few reasons why they’re good, but I’ll spell out a few more. Higher crop yield combined with faster growing crops is the only way we can keep up with the increasing global population. People are going hungry around the world, and creating crops like this can help feed more mouths.
Crops can be curated to withstand harsher conditions and in turn be able to grow in more locations. Farmland can only be used so many times before the soil nutrients are depleted, so having plants that can grow in harsher conditions with fewer nutrients is another way to increase crop production. Also, think of all the floating space farms we could have with tougher crops!
Lastly, plants can be modified to include benefits such as higher nutrient content or addition of other beneficial substances. It’s kind of like making those brownies that secretly have beans in them to get more nutrients, but you don’t have to do any of the baking. In this case, people would have to eat less food to get the same nutritional benefits, making crops go further. Another possibility is putting vaccines into plants, so you can boost your immune system by eating rather than getting a nasty shot (I believe tobacco companies are trying to do this with their tobacco crops, which is kind of an odd combination if you think about it).
There are tons of possible benefits from using GMOs, and it could have a big impact on how we grow and eat food in the near future.
Why are GMOs bad?
It’s important to weigh both sides of the situation before coming to a final opinion. I know I appear biased toward GMOs by touting their benefits, but I want people to be able to choose their own stance, regardless of my opinion. I can’t deny there are issues with GMOs, so let me explain a few of them.
When talking about genetically modifying something, people can get worried about the impact of ingesting said genetically modified substance, because they believe it will impact them. Modifying genes is not contagious, it isn’t easily spreadable like the common cold. While this is true, there is a very, very low risk of what is called horizontal gene transfer. This is exactly what it sounds like – the transfer of the genes (in this case, modified ones) to a new host.
The biggest impact this would have is on plants surrounding the modified crops. If antibiotic, pesticide, or herbicide resistance was transferred to a plant it wasn’t meant to be in (such as a weed or some non-native plant), it could cause disruption of surrounding ecosystem by causing some plants to grow too much and crowd out others. While it is possible, the chances of this happening are very low, however, and is difficult to replicate even in a controlled laboratory setting. The chances of this gene transfer occurring from plants to humans is even lower, but still something scientists are keeping an eye on.
Another environmental side effect comes from the herbicide, pesticide, or viral resistance that crops can be given. There is a possibility that if crops are resistance to herbicides or pesticides, farmers could use greater amounts of these substances to protect their crops from weeds and insects, or use harsher versions. This could lead to soil and water contamination of the surrounding areas, which is already a concern with using herbicides and pesticides in the first place. I’m sure that if GMOs become more widespread, this type of issue will be strictly regulated, but it is definitely something to keep in mind when using GMOs.
Aside from potential environmental impacts, there could be unintended economic consequences from the production of GMOs. For example, if a private company develops a safe “super” crop, they could patent the product and sell it at a steep markup while also refusing to describe how the crop is made. In this way they would profit from the GMO while also potentially running other, smaller companies out of business. If GMOs do become a main source of food, this will have to be monitored along with pesticide and herbicide use.
GMO Facts
Part of the reason for starting this blog was to teach people how to sift through some of the false information that floats around on topics like GMOs. Critical thinking is an important skill to have in any situation, and practice makes perfect. I’ll do a more in-depth blog post at some point, but I wanted to point out a few things in relation to my research on GMOs.
When you search “gmos” on Google, the first two websites are the Non-GMO Project and the Institute for Responsible Technology. I hope you can tell by the title of the first website that it is a biased source of information on GMOs. The second website looks better, I think in part by having the word ‘institute’ in the title, but once you go to the website, it is clearly against the use and distribution of GMOs.
There are a few important things to look for in a website before you decide to trust the information. One would be a clear mission statement or a description of what the website is about—which is normally easy to find, most places have an ‘about’ section. A second would be where they get their information from. To be fair, the Non-GMO Project has a decent mission statement (I’ve included a screenshot below), as they just want people to know what’s in their food. That in itself is admirable, but the very last bullet point states, “Everyone deserves an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified organisms.” Again, this is a great concept, but I would argue people deserve a non-biased informed choice, which is something the Non-GMO Project can’t offer.
If you look more into their sources of information, the Non-GMO Project highly recommends the consumption of a report called “GMO Myths & Truths.” They claim it as a “comprehensive review” of GMO science, published by “esteemed” researchers at a place called Earth Open Source. I’ll link the report at the end if you’re interested, but there are some caveats you should consider before reading.
The Earth Open Source is a research group run by a guy named John Fagan. I’ll save you some time by telling you that while this guy appears to have a great educational background (he has a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology from Cornell University), there seems to be something odd about him. He received funding from the National Institutes of Health for genetic research (roughly $600,000), and decides to give it all back for fear that his genetic research could lead to the production of harmful substances. This does seem admirable, but instead of continuing research in something else, he becomes an advocate for the non-GMO world.
He currently works at Maharishi University of Management, which is something you should consider if you want a laugh. To give you a preview, he’s considered a professor of microbiology and does research in understanding the impact of transcendental meditation on gene expression.
I say this to show that at first glance some websites can appear to be a good resource, but with some digging you find that there’s a deeper truth. The name “GMO Myths & Truths” appears to be trustworthy, but one of the main creators of it has a clear bias against GMOs. The ‘truths’ this guy writes about suddenly become based less on the science and more based on conjecture and opinions.
Following the disapproval of the first two links of the ‘gmos’ search, the third link is an excellent resource. It’s the one I used for most of my information on GMOs at the beginning of this post. Nature runs it, which is one of the most reputable scientific publication groups out there, and their Nature Education provides non-biased information on a variety of different topics. While it could do with an update, I think their GMO article did an excellent job providing information on both the good and bad aspects of GMOs. I especially think this article does a good job in addressing the problems of GMOs, while providing reasons for why they are problems and possible solutions or reassurances.
It’s amazing to me that it took the third link of a Google search to have a non-biased view of a controversial issue that affects everyone. It proves to me that science communication is a necessity, both to provide non-biased information about these topics (like the Nature Education website) and to provide information on how to find this non-biased information. There are a lot of facts floating around, and I think non-scientists need to be educated on how to sift through this information objectively, like a scientist would. Of course, this applies to fields outside of science too, I just find science-related topics a good starting place for learning how to think critically when presented with an issue like this.
I’ll finish with some thoughts of my own.
GMOs aren’t inherently dangerous. The danger comes from the potential misuse of the technology, the production, or the sale of these GMOs. When subjected to the strict regulation the FDA requires, the chances of this misuse making it to the public eye is miniscule. I promise that you will not develop a tumor or some sort of antibiotic resistance after eating a non-bruising apple, just like you won’t develop autism from getting vaccinated (sorry, Jenny McCarthy).
I think what scares people the most is the “genetically modified” part. Like I said at the beginning, farmers have been doing this for centuries by selectively breeding the best crops. The difference now is this breeding is done in a laboratory setting using more sophisticated technologies and invoking change at a faster rate.
One last important consideration I haven’t talked about is the social aspect of GMOs. This may be the real kicker with GMOs: GMOs are inherently a first-world issue, and it is a privilege that we even get to have this argument in the first place.
Crops that can grow in any condition regardless of the season or climate? Crops that mature quickly and increase crop yield? Crops with higher nutrient content so less food is consumed per person?
Imagine describing GMOs in this way to a poor, starving family in a third-world country (heck, a poor starving family in areas of America). How would you justify the lack of support for crops like this?
We get so caught up in worrying about ourselves that we forget that there is a greater need. Yes, I would agree with the Non-GMO Project that people have a right to know what’s in their food, so they can make the decision on whether they should consume it. But people also have the right to have food in the first place, and there are so many people in the world that don’t. There are issues with GMOs, but there’s also so much potential. The Nature article states, “increased research and improved safety go hand in hand.” I am confident that continuing research on GMOs will make them completely safe in time.
Next time you’re sitting eating non-bruised apples or seedless grape (technically hybrids but the idea is the same) sharing that anti-GMO article on Facebook that claims they are bad for your health, I encourage you to do a little bit of research first. Think for yourself, find out the truth behind the facts, find out who is behind the ideas you’re reading. Most importantly, think about the impact it could have.
Resources to fact check me if you’re bored:
