Making friends with Frankenfood: What critics, supporters miss in conversation over GMOs

Sometimes it surprises me that I’m not an anti-GMO activist.

Demographically, I fit the bill: I’m a left-leaning middle-class American woman with a bone to pick about the way my country eats. I’ve published articles about the salutary effects of sustainable/local/organic farming, I’m a member of Kentucky Community Farm Alliance and I subscribe to a CSA (community-supported agriculture) farm share. I am chronically skeptical when my friends and family declare that this or that paper-snowflake diet is going to slim me down, increase my energy or rid my body of disease because the only diet I’ve come to believe in is a holistic one in which vegetables, grains, meat and dairy are sourced from small-scale farmers whose chickens weren’t confined to cages and whose cows lived lives of roaming, grassful dignity.

Because many of us locavores campaigning for compassion and accountability in the way we plan our meals also advocate for a simpler way of life in general—less unnecessary technology and more focus on family and community—it’s not surprising that a lot of us have also spurned the introduction of GMO’s to farms across America.

Is this aversion a kneejerk reaction based on too-limited understanding of what GMO’s are? Or is the growing fear that has inspired rallies, unlawful destruction of GM products, demands for labeling of GM foods and the publication of countless articles, pamphlets, websites and blog posts a real and worthy one?

GMO activists, who encourage hostility toward any biological product whose DNA has been altered in the lab, are concerned about the effects these new crop strains and animal breeds might have on the health of our bodies, our agricultural systems and our environment. Anti-GMO concerns include whether genetically modified food is safe to consume, whether GM plants and animals will escape the farms where they’re introduced to infiltrate other habitats or pastures, and whether seeds modified and sterilized are ethical to sell to farmers, among other things. The most vocal are convinced that GM foods cannot be trusted and they advocate for costly labeling practices and laws against making and growing GMO’s—and they are sometimes violent about their demands.

I believe it’s a wholly decent and responsible thing for organizations and individuals to promote awareness of what’s being grown on America’s farms, which we, its citizens, ultimately feed our children; we are greatly indebted to those who have had the foresight and courage to put tough questions to our nation’s top scientists and nutritional experts in the past. The problem I have with the anti-GMO movement is not that its members are asking questions. On the contrary—my problem is that GMO opponents, who some have called “the climate skeptics of the left,” aren’t asking enough questions—and many of them don’t seem to want to hear about the well-researched, widely documented answers to those questions.

It’s the steadfast unwillingness to believe genetic modification could have any positive effects on our food and environment whatsoever that, in my opinion, has transformed its campaigners from conscientious cynics helping heal our tech-addled society into fingers-in-the-ears dogmatists. To many, my cautiously pro-GMO stance might appear antithetical to what I’ve written previously—the fact that there’s any dissonance at all is due in part to the informational rift that’s been created between GMO’s and the general public.

Allow me to explain. Genetically modified organisms already abound on organic farms. They line the shelves of our local Whole Foods Markets and arrive packed in good clean dirt with semi-weekly farm-share boxes. We humans have been slipping our fingers into the genomes of other organisms for thousands of years. The same manipulations that over centuries of trial and error have made your dog docile and your cat, well, depends on the cat—selective breeding—are as wholly “unnatural” within the plant and animal kingdoms as the more refined technologies we now have in the lab.

It was actually this very observation—the way human preferences could affect the temperament, behavior, morphology and diet of their pets and livestock—that led to some of Darwin’s key insights while developing his theory of evolution. There seemed to him a vast difference between what humans do to alter their animals and what occurs in nature to shape species into different kinds.

As evolutionary biologist Dennis Venema describes, “[Darwin noticed that] rather than a breeder choosing which individuals to mate, the ability of different variants to reproduce in a given natural setting would allow some to reproduce at a greater rate than others. Since their traits would be heritable, this would drive changes in traits over time in the population experiencing ‘natural selection,’ a term Darwin coined as an analogy to human, or artificial, selection.”

If the writers, thinkers and activists of Darwin’s time were consequently concerned about the effect selective breeding might have on the health of affected species and their consumers, these concerns didn’t make much of a dent on the scientific and social literature of the time. Uproar may have been scarce in part because the changes humans were causing in their animals and plants were subtle; they happened over time, ploddingly, from one generation to the next. The owner of an orchard could create a new strain of apple trees in his or her lifetime, but what cause would the arborist have had to speculate on the innate weirdness of what they were doing? Apples to apples.

Anytime we’ve chosen to hybridize a plant or animal by crossbreeding it with another, the morphological and behavioral changes we observe as a result first occurred at the DNA level. If we can do this type of tinkering with no grand ethical, doomsaying qualms, what prevents us from approaching with the same removed calm the more direct process of transferring genes between organisms in the lab? Indeed, at the macro level there is arguably more room for unanticipated results using old-fashioned breeeding; when knitting whole genomes together, we are playing a much less predictable game than when giving a plant an additional bit of genetic material to allow it to produce a specific trait, such as a pest-repellant toxin.

Granted, there are some key differences between lab techniques and traditional ones. Nature allows for the sexual pairing and consequent progeny of different dog breeds, lettuces, apples etc., because they are so closely related to begin with. We didn’t “force” anything there. But I don’t agree that just because breeding seems more natural means we should abandon altogether the more technologically sophisticated techniques we have now. When scientists talk about changing the world through genetic engineering—creating faster-growing, drought-resistant and disease-free food, or vitamin-rich crops in areas where natives suffer nutritional deficiencies—what they’re saying may sound overambitious or scary, but hold on a minute before hopping on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

We lucky members of the living world, so different in size, appearance, lifestyle and needs are all built with a staggering sameness. It’s not the stuff of our genetic code that makes us different—the human genome is no more profound than the genomes of yeast and rice (depending on how you choose to measure such things, both can be argued to possess more genetic information than we do). All creatures great and small are formed from the exact same building blocks: four types of nucleic acids, which scientists have nicknamed “A,” “C,” “T,” and “G,” code for everything living, breathing, swimming, and photosynthesizing on earth. To our knowledge, not a single carbon-based organism possesses a single letter of genetic information beyond that simple, universal alphabet.

This grand monotony is what makes genetic engineering possible, and practical. Crossing a firefly with a fern to make electricity-free reading lamps would be utterly impossible if both organisms were as fundamentally different as they look. Modifications made in the lab are simply swifter and have a larger array of conceivable uses than what we can create through artificial selection. It’s frankly a lot harder to try to produce battle-fortified citrus fruit by forcing two plants from different evolutionary lines to have sex than it is to insert a gene from the genome that can help in among the genes of the plant that needs helping.

Some anti-GMO activists claim that bug control via GMOs is one of the major problems with GMOs—when you engineer plants to produce their own natural pesticide, you end up killing bees and butterflies along with the unwelcome bacteria and beetles. Others claim that because some GMOs are proprietary and don’t produce viable seeds, their nutritional value to helpful insects dries up and thus, the bees die from malnourishment. If certain GMO crops can be implicated in the disappearance of bee colonies, then I say that’s a very good reason to oppose the cultivation of those specific GMO’s.

Precautions should be taken and are being taken to restrict GMOs used in some areas until we know more; even so, researchers are divided on the role that GMOs play, if any, on bee health. Even if there were considerable proof that GMOs were a threat to bees, does this mean we should oppose all GMOs on principle because of it? The bees and butterflies need advocates, they need protecting, but most of all they need help from scientists and horticulturalists to determine how best to protect them. That does not mean we should be damning all GM products.

Meanwhile, the panic ignited by anti-GMO activists may be causing more damage to human children than it is to any of the fuzzy, buzzy insects in your backyard. Golden rice, a strain of rice developed by scientists to help boost vitamin A levels and other nutrients in the diets of severely malnourished children, have been the target of multiple attacks and misinformation campaigns—a minority of protestors have burned whole fields of rice as inflammatory acts against genetically engineered food, as babies go blind and die in the background.

All this consternation, and yet nothing about the process of creating and cultivating GMOs need be inherently alarming or menacing if adequate precautions are taken to test GM products and introduce them with vigilance and care. Three separate government bodies regulate the production and implementation of GMOs—the EPA to evaluate them for environmental safety, the USDA to determine whether they’re safe to grow and the FDA to test whether they’re safe to eat.

GM foods get far more safeguarding attention than the novel fruits and vegetables your local farmer grows in her backyard. You could suggest (and many do) that the scientists behind these efforts, and the people in these agencies, and the environmental reporters and science journalists and everyone else involved in informing the public about GM products are unprincipled and corrupt shills for Monsanto working in a giant, silent conspiracy, but I’d say that you were, in a word, wrong.

Of course GMO’s are not risk free, and of course we need to proceed with utmost care and caution—none of the scientists I know think otherwise. As Doug Lauffenburger, head of the bioengineering department at MIT once told me, “The relative potential a new technology has for improving our lives and the world around us is directly proportional to the potential it has for doing harm.” So, small investment = small potential risk, small potential gain. Big investment = big potential risk, big potential gain.

We need to be more careful where we focus our concerns regarding GMOs, and how we advocate for or against them. Things are rarely as simple as they seem—as with human beings, human products are a complicated blend of positive and negative, possibly helpful and possibly harmful properties.

So who gets to talk about these things, and what should they be talking about? I believe in the principles of our democracy and I believe anyone who wants to have a say should join the conversation. But I urge advocates one way or the other to do extensive research before forming for-or-against opinions, and once formed, to be judicious about how they characterize both their views and the values of the other side.

Let’s talk about real concerns—the relationship between GMO’s and the protection of wildlife, or economic questions surrounding production and sale of GM products, including the question of whether it’s fair to sell seeds to farmers that they can’t save back and must re-purchase every year. And let’s talk about the opportunities—the genesis and release of bacteria that might remediate oil spills or clean up harmful chemicals, or goat milk that cures disease or bioluminescent plants to light up cities, instead of getting hysterical when it turns out that for much of our lives, most of our processed and some of our unprocessed food has contained GMOs. Indeed, the eating of genetically modified organisms probably shouldn’t even be on our list of major concerns.

As the Genetic Literacy Project has written, “…every major scientific regulatory oversight body in the world, including the National Academies of Science and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, has concluded that genetically modified foods pose no harm not also found in conventional or organic foods… Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply almost 20 years ago, there has not been one documented case of any health problem in humans—not even so much as a sniffle—linked to GMOs. The American Medical Association, whose physician members would have long ago picked up on a GMO-allergy connection, definitively rejects such speculation.”

As a fellow American conscious of the impact we have on our food systems and that our food systems have on us, and as a proponent of joyful and responsible eating and living in the 21st century—I am not advocating blind acceptance of the environmental and nutritional benefits of GMOs—but I do hope we will begin to adopt an attitude of caution and respect when discussing GMOs and judging how they should be utilized (or not).

While some of us are keenly invested and some are just starting to navigate the issues, all of us can choose to weigh the facts for their scientific and ethical integrity, not our own kneejerk biases. This goes for activists on both sides of the debate; extremism exists within the communication efforts of our scientists and science writers as well as those of our grassroots leaders. Let us search through the fray for those voices who educate with humility and a passion for understanding, even when the facts don’t seem to point to their own convictions.

Emily Ruppel is a PhD student in rhetoric of science at the University of Pittsburgh; prior to her doctoral work, she studied poetry at Bellarmine University and science writing at MIT. She has served as Web Editor for The BioLogos Foundation and as Associate Director of Communications for the American Scientific Affiliation. 

39 thoughts on “Making friends with Frankenfood: What critics, supporters miss in conversation over GMOs”

  1. How is it that BT-producing bacteria are now found in animals gut, giving them scours? This has harmed some livestock. Also, BT was found in ( I think I remember) 6/10 or 9/10 US women. (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/toxin-from-gm-crops-found-in-human-blood/1/137728.html —newspaper article, not a peer-reviewed journal article, but they are probably reporting on something that actually happened)
    Perhaps cooked BT, and not raw animal feed, is why US women do not also get scours from the BT in their blood, not intestines?
    This could be an example of harm to livestock and possibly humans from crops extra-species genetic modification.

    Also, I have noticed that GMO supporters always TRY to compare and equate in-species reproduction with GMO techniques. Are there any examples of xeno-genes apperaing in an multicellular organism without our help or interference? An example, have century-old methods ever produced something like an apple with bird feather genes? I would find such an example wonderful and fascinating.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    • If ranchers were observing this in their livestock, you can bet your hat that we would be hearing about it! But we’re not. Because they’re not.

      Reply
      • Studies confirm what is happening in the livestock when fed corn grown from Monsanto’s seeds. Nothing detectable even though Whole Foods, for example, says that when chickens eat GE chicken feed, they magically become GMO chickens, same with cows that eat GE alfalfa. It’s some kind of magic not DNA science, that’s all…. Slight of hand I guess. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036141 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033668 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027177 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047851

        Reply
        • here try this;

          Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1

          A. L. Van Eenennaam2 and

          A. E. Young

          + Author Affiliations

          Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616

          ↵2Corresponding author: [email protected]

          Abstract

          Globally, food-producing animals consume
          70 to 90% of genetically engineered (GE) crop biomass. This review
          briefly summarizes
          the scientific literature on performance and health
          of animals consuming feed containing GE ingredients and composition of
          products derived from them. It also discusses the
          field experience of feeding GE feed sources to commercial livestock
          populations
          and summarizes the suppliers of GE and non-GE
          animal feed in global trade. Numerous experimental studies have
          consistently
          revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed
          animals are comparable with those fed isogenic non-GE crop lines. United
          States animal agriculture produces over 9 billion
          food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals
          consume
          feed containing GE ingredients. Data on livestock
          productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources
          from
          1983, before the introduction of GE crops in 1996,
          and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of
          predominately
          GE animal feed. These field data sets representing
          over 100 billion animals following the introduction of GE crops did not
          reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock
          health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the
          nutritional profile of animal products derived from
          GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the
          diet
          that are digested, there are no detectable or
          reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs
          following
          consumption of GE feed. Globally, countries that
          are cultivating GE corn and soy are the major livestock feed exporters.
          Asynchronous
          regulatory approvals (i.e., cultivation approvals
          of GE varieties in exporting countries occurring before food and feed
          approvals
          in importing countries) have resulted in trade
          disruptions. This is likely to be increasingly problematic in the future
          as
          there are a large number of “second generation” GE
          crops with altered output traits for improved livestock feed in the
          development
          and regulatory pipeline. Additionally, advanced
          techniques to affect targeted genome modifications are emerging, and it
          is
          not clear whether these will be encompassed by the
          current GE process-based trigger for regulatory oversight. There is a
          pressing
          need for international harmonization of both
          regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding
          techniques
          to prevent widespread disruptions in international
          trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future.

          Reply
    • Bt-producing soil bacteria like Bacillus thuringiensis are ubiquitous in the environment and they are also widely used as pesticides in organic and conventional agriculture (yes organic uses pesticides they just claim they aren’t pesticides because they are natural). So one way to get Bt bacteria in the gut is from organic agricultural use; another way is through ingestion of the bacteria while grazing. The least likely way is by transfer of Bt genes present in Bt crops to gut bacteria. That has never been observed to happen even in studies designed to encourage gene transfer.

      Bt genes in gut bacteria would not hurt livestock or humans as Bt is absolutely without any effect on mammalian gastrointestinal tissue despite some of the fairytales being spread by anti-GM propagandists. Check out the new study by Van Eenennaam and Young (see:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-safety-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/)

      The Canadian study that reported Bt in the bloodstreams of women has been widely criticized for a number of major short-comings the most significant of which is that the test procedure used is not capable of measuring Bt in blood and the levels reported were at or below the lower limit of detectability of the test even when it is used on appropriate test samples. The study is so bad it never should have appeared in print; experts discount it as artifact but that doesn’t prevent anti-GM propagandists from citing it all the time.

      Yes there are many examples of gene flow between distant organisms but no apples with bird feathers–perhaps because a structure like feathers requires many genes and would not be selected for because it probably would be very useful for apples to have feathers. There is a common misconception that genes do not flow between species, however, in more closely related organisms genes flow is common. The American Bison (Bison bison) can mate with the domestic cow (Bos taurus); there are many other examples of matings between diverse genera like this. Genome sequencing has identified many genes in humans and other organisms that come from totally unrelated organisms like bacteria. Paul: you sound like you might enjoy reading up on horizontal gene transfer in nature–it’s fascinating. More importantly, genes are just genes no matter what organism they come from. They are simply a set of instructions the the machinery of the cells uses to make one building block or feature of the organism, Biotechnology (for example GM plants) basically shows that genes function the same way in all organisms. Moving a gene from one organism to another is no big deal as long as it can be shown that the gene products and their effects are safe. Years of research and regulation are applied to GM crops to make sure that they are safe.

      Sad to say, the GM issue is a diversion from some really important issues facing the food and agricultural system right now. It’s a shame so many 10s of millions of dollars are being invested every year to scare people about GM foods when the science itself is so clear.

      Reply
      • “Moving a gene from one organism to another is no big deal as long as it
        can be shown that the gene products and their effects are safe.”

        This oversimplifies the process and dismisses the concerns raised by scientists.

        “Years of research and regulation are applied to GM crops to make sure that they are safe.”

        If you believe that our regulations help ensure that GM crops are safe, why do you actively work to reduce those regulations?

        Reply
        • Name some non activist–truly independent scientists–who raise specific concerns about moving genes from one organism to another. There really aren’t any of note, because a gene is a gene is a gene. The concept of ‘foreign’ genes makes no biological sense, since we all share common genes. You have marigold and fish and dinosaur genes in you, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not. It’s that commonality of our genetic history that makes breeding and gene movement even possible; the species ‘barrier’ is an artificial construct if you understand genetics and basic biology.

          Reply
          • It’s not about moving the genes from one to another – it’s about the statement that as long as it can be shown that the gene products and their effects are safe, it’s no big deal.

          • Tell us just what it is about showing that gene products are safe that concerns you and we can discuss it. I been involved with safety evaluation for over 40 years. All the biological molecules in the biosphere are either directly gene products or indirectly are made by gene products (enzymes). Since long before biotechnology and gene transfer became possible several branches of science have focused on safety assessment of biomolecules (e.g. gene products). From a safety assessors point of view, the safety of a single well-characterized new molecule inserted into a microbe, plant or animal as is the case with GM organisms can be evaluated more easily than the hazards created by some of the older conventional methods of breeding which sometimes causes 1000s of mutations and lots of shuffling of DNA the result of which is the elimination and creation of unknown and uncharacterized molecules. Strangely we have been using a sort of black box approach to genetics to breed crops and animals and even that has turned out to be very safe. How many times have you heard that a newly bred variety of anything hurt someone? Maybe that’s why nobody ever asked to regulate conventional breeding. To me it makes little sense to regulate the safer technology, other than demonstrating that newly introduced traits are safe. What might make more sense is to regulate all new traits regardless of the breeding method as only Canada attempts to do. To return to your question/comment, what specifically concerns you about using science to test if a molecule is safe? And explain to me why you single out GM crops for this concern?

          • bchassy,
            If the gene “product”, as produced by the engineered organism (plant), can be shown to be exactly the same product as the one we isolated, produced on its own, and proved to be safe – and – if we can then show that the engineered plant is as close to identical to the parent as a conventionally bred “offspring” would be – including nutritional components beyond protein, ash, etc. (the simple comparisons of “substantial equivalence”) – and – if we can show that under various typical growing conditions this engineered plant doesn’t change any more than its parent and continues to produce the same “product” in the same amounts, without altering the rest of the plant in an unwanted way (and if the “product” didn’t also happen to harm the soil or beneficial organisms) – THEN I would say I would have no concerns.

            Since our regulatory system doesn’t require verification of any of these things, I have concerns.

            Your way of talking about GE seems very simplistic. For instance, the number of gene changes in conventional breeding compared to GE is irrelevant. Advocates say that GE is more “precise” because of the small # of genes introduced. That’s just a silly attempt to make it sound like it’s very controlled, and safer. You talk about GE as if it’s established as a “safer” way to create new plants. It’s not. That’s why many independent scientists are calling for better regulation.

            i wouldn’t single out all GE plants to be concerned about. And I would include mutagenic bred crops for concern. I think it would be difficult for you to put me in an anti-GMO box. However, your blanket support of less regulation for GMOs definitely goes along with your industry advocacy.

          • Hi-

            You can add my name to this list. I am a physician-scientist at Columbia University who has actually used gene-editing in scientific experiments. I think most scientists would agree that our genome is not as simple as you suggest – and that moving one gene into another genome carries a great risk for altering baseline phenotype and can certainly impact other gene regulation even when inserted in non-gene areas. I base this opinion, on my own experience using gene editing in experiments- as well as the growing research that highlights the importance of non-genetic DNA’s role on regulating gene transcription.

            Furthermore, while the basic code may be shared (the nucleotides) the actual sequence for the vast majority of genes is not identical (often similar, but surely not identical). You can actually see this for yourself by using the government sponsored engine that examines gene sequences for homology (amount of similarity). You can access it here:

            http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi

            The idea of species – rests on the fact that two separate organisms cannot reproduce to generate fertile progeny. By definition they cannot perpetuate – so its not an artificial barrier – its actually determined by non-complimentary genetics. For example- if you mated with a pig – I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a viable offspring to the scientific community – despite the fact that your genome possesses several genes with high similarity to a pig’s genome.

    • Paul, What you’re describing is what happens in Organic farming. DiPel is the number one pesticide used by “organic” farmers. “The active ingredient in DiPel is proprietary strain ofBacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk). VBC’s proprietary Btk Strain ABTS-351 is high yielding strain that produces a uniquely balanced blend of four Cry toxin proteins – Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry2 – plus Bt spores. Cry toxins are lethal to many pest and disease-carrying insect species, such as caterpillar, beetle, and mosquito larvae.” “When an insect pest ingests Cry proteins from treated leaves, its feeding stops within minutes. The protein crystals are solubilized in the gut of the pest and gut cells are irreparably damaged. Once this damage occurs, Bt spores enter through the gut wall and germinate rapidly in the body cavity causing blood poisoning. The larvae then die in 1-3 days.” http://microbials.valentbiosciences.com/valent-biosciences-corporation-microbial-home/products/dipel

      Reply
    • Bt has been used for decades, long before GMO’s were ever heard of. It is one of the most commonly used pesticides by organic farmers.

      Reply
  2. I love your viewpoints! One question: you say one of the remaining issues is that farmers can’t save seed to use again. Actually, farmers choose to buy new seed, if they’re big growers; saved seed is subject to rotting, mixing, poor crops the next year, and it’s just not worth it to a farmer to get a poorer yield because he saved seed. Additionally, lots of hybrids — including many organic seeds — are patented, and we’re not allowed to save and use them either. It’s not limited to GE seeds; patenting new cultivars is an old process, and is applied across the agricultural board.

    Reply
    • It is my understanding that most, if not all, hybrids will not breed true anyway, so saving those seeds would be pointless. But one farmer stated that the main reason he never saved the seed is that the storage conditions required were much more rigorous, and an unwanted extra expense.

      Reply
  3. Thank you for a well thought out article. I would suggest that most people don’t understand that for crops that are very hard to improve via breeding, such as banana, cassava, yam, etc., the use of biotechnology to improve them is even more important. The work being done on these crops is introducing disease resistance not found in natural varieties and there will be no restrictions on the saving of seed.

    Reply
      • You are correct, true seeds are not used to increase the number of plants. Clones are one way to plant, but not the majority. The planting material farmers use, pieces of stems for cassava and suckers for banana, is referred to as “seed”.

        Reply
        • Thanks Larry for the correction. I didnt know that the suckers and cuttings are called “seed” in English, in our language we dont use the term.

          Reply
  4. Agree that GMOs are good… But cannot stand the blathering length of this post. Do the words concise, and/or brevity mean anything to the author? They say the written word is a mirror of the mind. Yikes, somebody’s got quite a mess upstairs.

    Reply
  5. Please stop equating transgenic crop development with conventional breeding. There is no justification for doing so. The only reason to say “we’ve been genetically modifying food for years” is to try to draw a false equivalency. You’re immediately exposed as either being ignorant of the technology, or motivated by some other means. GMOs may prove to be beneficial to humanity in a number of ways (they already have in many applications). But pesticide tolerant and insect resistant commodity crops are a phenomenon whose day has come and gone. Stacked traits for use of increasingly toxic pesticides are leading down the wrong path for sustainable agriculture. And the continual and increased expression of bt toxins is something whose consequences we have yet to learn.

    Reply
    • “You’re immediately exposed as either being ignorant of the technology, or motivated by some other means.”

      Oh, spare us the accusations. I guess it’s hard for you to wrap your head around the fact that we have many ways to alter a plant’s genome to our advantage.

      “But pesticide tolerant and insect resistant commodity crops are a phenomenon whose day has come and gone.”

      Ummm, yeah, no. You’ll know their day has passed when farmers quit buying them.

      Reply
  6. Great article overall. I wish you would recheck your sources regarding terminator seeds. You seem to take it as given that seed sterility is widely incorporated into seeds endowed with one or more traits facilitated with ge methods. It is my understanding that the capacity exists, but it has never been deployed.

    I suspect that this particular misconception persists because it seems to explain what people incorrectly perceive is a, sudden, and coerced departure from farmers saving a portion of their crop for replanting. This may have been the norm for most crops reproduced from seed –100 YEARS AGO. Seed saving was still common for some crops like wheat in the more recent past, and is still a practical option in some cases todsy, but it has hardly been the predominant option chosen by farmers since long before ge varieties arrived on the scene.

    Farmers in the developed world have what farmers in the third world often lack, the option to purchase seed inputs with superior genetics. On the surface, it appears economically irrational to purchase seed when you could acquire seed for seemingly free. Thus, if farmers purchase seed annually it could only be because they are coerced into doing so.

    But seed saving is not free. There are direct costs, (storage, cleaning & conditioning, and income foregone from not selling saved seed) and risks (potential for spoiling, pest and fungal damage and othr types of deterioration that can reduce the germination and quality of th seed) to depending on saved seeds. More importantly, people also overlook the opportunity costs–forgoing genetic improvements in seeds that enhance yields, simplify husbandry, reduce production costs, provide resiliency to growing season stresses, enhance market value, etc. that are unlikely to achieve through simple seed selection. Purchasing seed annually or frequently is understandable as a rational economic one. Itdoesn’ require coercion to explain. You should go back and review the history of the first introduction of corn hybrids in the 1920’s and thirties. At that time farmers could easily continue to plant open pollinated varieties both commercial varieties and public sector developed varieties. As the performance and enhanced economic return of hybrids which would be impractical to save for planting outpaced nonhybrid seeds, farmers voluntarily switched from varieties that could be replanted and adopted hybrids even though it meant forgoing seed saving. It takes only a relatively small yield advantage to offset input cost saving by saving seed and that ignores other economic advantages advanced seed genetics can provide.

    For hybrid crops like corn at least, varieties with ge induced traits are still hybrids. GE traits are in addition to, not replacement of the genetic endowment of the hybrid varieties they are bred into. For hybrid crops, there would be no point in saving seed.

    A final thought. Seed companies are often criticized for asking farmers to purchase seed under written agreement they. will not save seed for replanting and for acting to safeguard their proprietary interest when farmers do not honor the agreement. If ge seeds were incapable of germination, why would the contractual restriction on replanting be necessary? Why would farmers want to save them and why would seed companies even care if they did?

    Reply
  7. People need to understand that GMO is only a representative topic in the bigger discussion on ‘what’s the role of science in our food production systems’.

    Today, Science has earned the notorious name of creating many other problems while solving one problem….in the case of food production, for the sake of solving problems like pests and productivity, Science has invaded the ‘Diversity of an eco-system’ slowly and steadily. And that I believe is the fundamental cause for all these diseases that seem to affect only the plants that produce food for man. The ‘other’ plants in the plant kingdom which are untouched by the man for his food needs, still seems to be healthy as it was centuries before. And every scientist would agree to the fact that monoculture is not good for soil and mankind. But no scientists or scientific organizations has spent any time and effort to revive the ‘Diversity’ that’s lost so far. That’s because saving ‘Diversity’ is not monetarily rewarding. Today, if you ask a common man – why endangered species should be protected from vanishing?, not many would be able to give a clear answer. And it’s this ignorance in the humanity, that is being exploited by the scientific community all around.

    Reply
    • It’s an interesting narrative about diseases that you’ve presented but contradicts what I’ve come to understand from geneticists. If you have any evidence that the diseases are caused by conventional agriculture and do not impact “other” plants, please provide it. As for monoculture, the best modern farmers do not have that problem. Diversity is an issue of gene biology, not about planting one crop or not. Best if you read up on that, as I believe some of your views are based on activist ideology and not the science of farming. Without the “science” that you dismiss, we would not have had the Green Revolution and would have literally billions of people malnourished or facing death from hunger. Personally, I’ll take that life saving trade off any day. Plus, the new generation of GM crops are designed to address a whole host of issues that cannot be as adequately addressed by other forms of agriculture, such as drought and flood tolerance, pest problems, etc. Science is no panacea but sweeping generalizations about its supposed hidden evils is not particularly constructive.

      Reply
      • Typically, GMO debate gets into a prejudiced domain of Science Vs age old traditions. GMO needs to be viewed and discussed not for the sake of it alone, but it needs to be placed in the bigger context of ‘Sustainability’. Humanity knows only one way to live – to rely on Nature for its sustenance. Hence, there’s no question of humanity living without disturbing NATURE. However, the key question is how ‘light’ can we live and how ‘little’ can we disturb the natural processes around us. I guess we all agree that the natural cycles like nitrogen cycle has been greatly disturbed by the Green Revolution. Our solutions for the current problems should be more far-sighted, planned and meditated upon. The trial & error model of working isn’t the only way to approach a solution….So, the key question is, what are the long term impacts of promoting GMO and are there alternatives that can be evolved. Lets not hail the first solution that we have stumbled upon as the best one….

        A scientific solution is arrived at after narrowing down the degree of vision to one area with laser sharp focus. Once the solution is arrived, it’s important to keep the solution on the pedestal which brings back the 360 degree view and allow it to be criticized and dissected by all…

        Reply
  8. It’s not a question of opposing GMO seeds outright but the way it is being promoted aggressively at the cost of other simpler and less expensive technologies. The rate of failure is more in GMO crops in the long run when compared to more traditional specialized breeding. The modified crops are not reducing input costs but increasing them. And basically the problem is that they have to be done specialized labs with exorbitant costs on the research and to recover that input they have to be patented and marketed. None of the producers come to the rescue of the people who have used them and there is a failure. As far as it being well researched with statistics available for anyone, well then either the research is very short sighted or deliberately misleading or worse the so called researcher are plain stupid. Take for example the much tom- tom-ed breed of worm resistant crops, we see that after an initial success the worms are back, what happened was very simple, the worms adopted, don’t ever underestimate evolution and adaptability, so where did the well researched statistics go? If anyone is under the idea that there are no crops that have high nutritional value or are bug resistant or are high yielding or are all of it in the traditional breeds then they don’t know their Science. It would be much more advisable to put your scant research money where it really makes an impact to the population than just serve to show positive growth statistics in the country’s GDP and keeping high profile Corporations on a high. Lets face one FACT only seed companies and chemical fertilizer companies and chemical pesticide companies and sponsored (by them and other vested interests) are making money while as the average hard working honest to God Farmer has always had a Raw Deal, and this is also a well researched FACT with enough statistics to prove it. Lets face another FACT, if we are talking about solving the problem of World Hunger; and that is the Majority of people who are engaged in Food Production especially Farm Crops are not very highly educated nor do they have any Capital to invest, and if we concentrate on giving them costly inputs (with no guarantees) for which they will have to borrow and invest and if they fail like it happened with worm resistant strains recently then we will just be giving them short ropes to hang themselves, (lovers of statistics can see this- the no. of suicides related to debt. burdens in the farming sector). What the people who are opposing it are saying that (maybe they got too emotional about it and raved and ranted) it is not the SOLUTION right now, and when the efficacy of the technology is proved beyond any doubt then and only then can it be introduced on slowly increasing larger and larger scales. The responsibility of Science is also in the FACT that it does not destroy the people involved themselves in it’s eagerness to destroy outdated technologies. Remember that Science and Technology are tools to SERVE mankind and it is not the other way round. Only those things that can ease man’s suffering and burden and make life easier and more comfortable are PROGRESS, just because something is NEW and never done before does not earn the title of PROGRESS it can even be REGRESS pushing mankind into the DARK AGES.

    Reply
  9. Emily, great post and very well said. As a farmer and grower advocate I really appreciate your viewpoints…proceed with the technology but with caution.

    Regarding the saving of seed vs signing a contract that a farmer cannot use the harvested crop for planting purposes, is not new but has become a more common practice in the last few years in all areas of agriculture. I know there are some comments on this subject so I will expand a little.

    As a wheat, barley, pea, lentil, and garbanzo bean farmer in the PNW, I do not have access to any biotech crop (GE) varieties. Most of the varieties that were grown until the last ten years were public varieties developed by our land grant universities. Today, there are more private varieties available that will provide me with an economic benefit.

    Regardless of the variety being public or private, I still need to sign a contract with most of the crops I grow that I will not save seed. Ten years ago I did not have to do that. Within my operation I do not see this as an issue because I used certified varieties each year for each crop anyway.

    The benefit of using “fresh” seed is important for vigor, germination, cleanliness, and quality control. While I could save a couple of dollars per acre by saving seed and having it cleaned and a seed treat applied, seed is one of my least expensive inputs I have. Fuel, fertilizer, machinery, taxes, and other expenses cost me more per acre than anything I seed.

    The point you brought up about worrying about other things than eating GMO food is spot on. That point ties in with the private versus public seed supply.

    Public varieties had always been the mainstay for the majority of crops, this is especially true for the crops I grow. As breeders and technicians left universities to work with better equipment and make more money, the private seed industry grew.

    The cause of this is lack of focus of funds to our land grant institutions for agriculture research. In today’s political climate, rural doesn’t equate votes and results of tests takes longer than some political cycles (2, 4, or 6 years depending upon elected position). It’s all about votes.

    Money that should be used for agriculture research and extension has been taken away and diverted by a bastardized Farm Bill…For Votes. If the public really does care about what they eat they would advocate for Congressional change in Farm Bill priorities.

    Our public land grant universities are the check and balance between farmers, consumers, and private business. Also, they control the majority of crop germplasm that many private companies use.

    Also with seed, it is way more expensive to buy the little packets of corn seed, pea seed, or other crop for my garden than it is for me to run my farm. The bulk of the “organic” seed providers of “heirloom” varieties have restrictions on seed uses which should debunk any debate on paying for seed and signing a contract.

    Finally, I don’t care if I plant a brick, rock, or wheat seed. I will plant what I believe will provide me with the best long term economic benefit regardless of private or public, biotech or conventional.

    Again Emily, great article. Thank you for writing it and posting it!

    Robert Blair “UnmannedFarmer”
    4th Generation Farmer
    President, Idaho Grain Producers Association
    Chairman of the U.S. Wheat/National Association of Wheat Growers
    Joint Biotech Committee
    Father of two and husband

    Reply
  10. While I love the idea that we should be open to the evidence that GMO may not necessarily lead to a harmful product – there is one line of reasoning that (respectfully) does not ring true for me in your article.

    The first is the parallel you draw between husbandry and genetic editing (modern GMO techiques).

    These approaches are very different. Picking traits that emerge in an organism and encouraging its expression in subsequent generations (like sweetness in a tomatoe) is NOT the same as introducing a new trait or gene that doesnt exist in the organisms genome.

    I do the latter in the lab on human cells, and while it is helpful to study signaling pathways linked to particular gene products – it is well known that genetic editing is often wrought with untoward/unexpected effects. There are a multitude of ways that different gene editing approaches can shift other cell processes and gene expression. A clear example of this actually was recently hot in the news – where a chinese group used Crisp-mediated editing to alter a human embryo – but despite good reported methodology – they found non-reliable editing. This level of imprecision for the techniques – and ultimately for unintended/unexpected changes to regulatory segments of the genome (where the editing occurs) should raise red flags and make us scrutinize this issue in scientific and public forums. The public has a substantiated right to question the potential danger of these approaches – since we really do not know – or have developed perfected methods for determining if gene editing occurs in a safe manner.

    Reply
    • Got off your high horse. You have no expertise in this area. You are an anesthesiologist. Your understanding of basic genetics, and your fear mongering around it, is reprehensible from a science/medical perspective…and every major independent science organization of note in the world agrees.

      Reply
      • Hi Jon-

        Im actually a physician and a scientist. While it is true I am an anesthesiologist I am also a basic science researcher.

        Check me out on PUBMED – Ive authored in several highly respected basic science journals. You can review my papers here:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gallos+g

        Im not on a horse- just speaking from experience in a lab- which I am happy to share my credentials with you and the public. Can you please show us your credentials on this topic?

        I am not fear-mongering- sorry it came across that way. I am speaking from a legitimate place of concern over what does happen with gene-editing in a lab setting. Im also sorry if I misspoke please correct anything I have said- instead of trying to attack me.

        Reply
  11. The sliver of people you are profiling as anti-gmo is just that! a sliver! The main thrust is the right of the consumer to have appropriate labeling which identifies gmo products. That is asking too much for a company which has the largest stake in food and takes all kinds of credit for “engineering” successful crops! I say be proud of GMO’s and encourage labeling!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.