Last week PSPG and the Penn Biotech
Group hosted Dr. Val Giddings, President and CEO of the consulting firm
PrometheusAB and Senior Science Policy Fellow at the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation. Dr. Giddings specializes in issues concerning genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs) or as he prefers to call them, “biotech-improved” organisms,
which have been genetically engineered to have certain beneficial traits. This usually means that a gene from one organism is inserted into the genome of a different organism to alter its properties or behavior in some beneficial way. GMO
crops are frequently altered to improve tolerance to herbicides (think RoundUp)
and resistance to insects and pathogens. They can also be modified to change
their agronomic qualities (how/when they grow) which helps farmers to be more
productive. Crops can also be modified to improve their quality: for example
Golden Rice has been engineered to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin
A, which is an essential nutrient that many children in developing countries don’t
get enough of1,2. GMO crops are
quite prevalent within the US agriculture, with over 90% of soybeans, 80% of
cotton and 75% of corn crops in the US being genetically modified in some way3.
Outside of the US, GMO crops are grown in 27 countries by 18 million farmers,
most of whom are smallholders in developing countries4. So what are
the consequences of all these genetic modifications in our food supply?
The Pros: GMO
crops with improved agronomic properties have allowed farmers to increase yield on less land, reducing CO2
output and allowing more wild habitats to remain untouched. GMOs have also
decreased the need for pesticides
because insect-resistant plants fight off pests on their own, which is good for
the environment and good for you. GMO crops that have been modified to increase yield and produce essential
nutrients could be a boon for developing countries where hunger and vitamin
deficiencies are a serious problem.
The Cons: GMOs
could lead to the overuse of herbicides
like RoundUp because herbicide-tolerant plants can be sprayed more often with
more chemicals. However, Dr. Giddings argued that herbicide-tolerant crops
would have to be treated less often
because the weeds could be killed off quickly in one fell swoop so there may be
a trade-off there. I think the most
serious concerns about GMO crops primarily relate to unintended ecological
consequences. GMO crops, if they somehow escaped the farm and started
growing wild, might out-compete other plants and reduce overall biodiversity.
They could also seriously disrupt the food chain, especially considering that
they can kill off insect species which are undoubtedly a food source for other
animals. And then there’s the question of whether GMOs are safe to eat. There
are concerns that GMO crops which produce foreign proteins (such as those that
kill off insects) might trigger allergic reactions in some individuals; however
there have never been any legitimate reports of this happening. There are also
concerns that GM foods could cause cancer; however rigorous, peer-reviewed
scientific studies have effectively ruled out this scenario. In fact the most
prominent study to claim a link between GMOs and cancer had to be retracted
because the sample size was too small to draw any conclusions and the authors
used a rat strain which was known to have a high frequency of cancer to begin
with5. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that GMOs are
bad for you and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that GMOs are safe to eat6.
Existing federal law requires
food labels to be accurate, informative and not misleading. Nutrition labels
must contain material information relating to health, safety and nutrition. The
fact of the matter is that GMOs are considered safe so there is no reason for
the FDA to force companies to identify their products as GMO. Basically the FDA
decided that genetically modified foods are subject to the same labeling rules
as any other food. Here are the highlights from FDA’s recommendations on how to
label GM food7:
- If a bioengineered food is significantly different from its traditional counterpart such that the common or usual name no longer adequately describes the new food, the name must be changed to describe the difference.
- If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference.
- If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.
However this doesn’t mean consumers
are completely in the dark about what they’re buying. If you wish to avoid GM
foods you can buy food labeled “USDA Organic” or “Non-GMO certified.” Otherwise
it’s probably safe to assume a product includes some kind of bioengineered
ingredient.
So why the big fuss over GMOs? It’s
pretty clear that bioengineered foods are safe to eat and GMOs are probably
more helpful than hurtful to the environment. Dr. Giddings offered a few
explanations for the widespread resistance to GMOs in the Western world.
Firstly, the organic/health food industry reaps big profits by distinguishing itself as a healthy, safe alternative to the Big Ag. Secondly and more importantly, food is a huge
part of every human being’s life and nobody likes the idea of it being messed
with in ways they might not understand. It’s especially disconcerting when huge
tentacle-y corporations are responsible for these changes. So with all these considerations in mind, it’s
up to you, the consumer, to decide whether genetically modified foods are worth the risks. Feel free to comment if there are any issues I omitted that you think are worth noting.
-Nicole Aiello
1. Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti
A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin A
(β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305.
2. Grune T, Lietz G, Palou A, Ross AC, Stahl W, Tang G,
Thurnham D, Yin S, Biesalski HK (2010) β-Carotene is an important vitamin A source
for humans. Journal of Nutrition doi:
10.3945/jn.109.119024.
3. US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research
Service (ERS) 2013. Adoption of
Genetically Engineered Crops in the US data product.
4. Clive James, ISAA Brief 46.
5. Séralini, Gilles-Eric; Clair,
Emilie; Mesnage, Robin; Gress, Steeve; Defarge, Nicolas; Malatesta, Manuela;
Hennequin, Didier; De Vendômois, Joël Spiroux (2012). "Long term toxicity
of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize".
Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11): 4221–31.