Let’s talk about GMOs
What are GMOs
How they work and how has the technology changed over time.
Genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) are, whether we fully understand them or not, an established part of our global food lexicon. For some of us, the very mention of GMOs can inspire passionate discourse and drum up strong emotions, but for many of us, they remain in a cloud of mystery, only thickened by conflicting information and ambiguous definitions. So, before we dive into the ocean of complexities surrounding GMOs, let’s get on the same page about what they are.
GMOs are organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using some method of genetic engineering. GMOs are usually plant species, but the first approved GMO animal, a species of fish, was recently released. Some of the most prominent plant species that have been developed and approved are Corn, Soybeans, Cotton, Potatoes, Alfalfa, Canola, Papayas, Squash, Apples, and Sugarbeets. The desired outcome of any given method is to allow for the introduction of new or improved traits. These traits can have impacts on size, color, flavor, resistance (against things like weeds, insects, or even drought), and even nutritional content. In fact, three “generations” of GMOs (think: categories, not years) are widely recognized:
First Generation: Improvement in traits related to tolerance of herbicides, tolerance of pests, and resistance to environmental conditions (heat, drought, etc.)
Second Generation: Improvement in traits related to nutrition
Third Generation: Improvement to traits beyond those related to traditional food (for use in things like pharmaceuticals or other products)
So, you might now be asking “Ok but HOW does it work?” While genetic engineering seeks the same goals as older methods like selective breeding or mutagenic techniques, it does so in a far more precise way. Selective breeding refers to breeding plants with favorable traits over generations to amplify the expression of these traits—something farmers have been doing since the beginning of agriculture. Mutagenic techniques involve exposing cells to x-rays or chemicals to get them to randomly mutate (a process that happens naturally but slowly during evolution) faster to reveal novel traits. Selective breeding and mutagenic techniques, in their inherent imprecision, can often take years if not decades to acquire the desired traits. However, with genetic engineering, the specific genes that control the expression of traits can not only be identified, but then extracted and inserted into the DNA of the host plant cells.
If we want to get into the nitty gritty, this insertion is often carried out using a “gene gun” (that’s literally what they call it) which shoots high speed particles coated in the desired gene(s) into cells -- I agree, that sounds like something straight out of Looney Tunes b-b-b-but thats science folks.
Why they were created.
GMOs were introduced to the commercial marketplace in 1994 by Calegene, an Agro-Biotech company, with big hopes for a bright future. With this new technology that could allow precise gene manipulation, farmers could expect crops that were insect resistant, herbicide tolerant, and more resilient against a variety of potential environmental conditions. The implications of these advancements were no less inspiring. Farmers could expect to not only reduce their operating costs (needing less pesticide, fertilizer, etc.), but increase their yields substantially. This last hope was (and continues to be) a particularly strong selling point to the public, as organizations like the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (UN FAO) estimate that global yields will have to increase by nearly 70% by 2050 in order to keep up with population growth and predicted declines in farmer yields due to climate change.
However, this last point is highly contested, particularly among researchers who believe that our current agricultural output already far exceeds global calorie needs, and that instead of needing to produce even more food, we need to focus on improving our systems related to distribution, access, and waste.
Why the public is resistant to them.
And yet, despite the high hopes that proponents for this technology have for its capabilities and its future, the general public remains highly skeptical. Most of this skepticism falls within three camps: impacts on human health, impacts on our environment, and distrust in corporate powers. Before we discuss the truth and misconceptions within these three camps, it’s important to understand that some of this skepticism is rooted in biases and philosophical opinions that, in many cases, are only indirectly related to GMOs.
As someone who may not have extensive experience with our food systems, biology, or scientific fields in general, genetic intervention in our food can be a troubling concept. When that is coupled with the fact that the majority of our information likely comes from non-scientific sources —like the news or social media— an unclear understanding of GMOs can reasonably be met with distrust in the technology. Research indicates that there is a huge disparity in public knowledge regarding the nature of the technology, how prevalent GMOs are in our food (in the US), which foods are allowed to be GM and what eating GM foods can do to the human body. What’s more, there is a huge disparity between the public’s perceived and actual knowledge regarding GM technology. This disparity can be attributed to the “Dunning-Kruger effect”, a cognitive bias in which people overestimate their knowledge of a topic, as a direct result of their lack of understanding. This cognitive bias can fuel the momentum of both wide-spread misunderstanding, and, more tragically, campaigns of misinformation.
Additionally, there exists a large amount of bias against scientific intervention in living organisms, as well as the regulatory bodies and corporations that oversee and carry-out the implementation of these technologies. Some of the biases are largely of a philosophical nature—many people simply don’t like the idea of “too much” scientific intervention in nature, or that regulators and corporations could have a certain amount of power. And many others are based on a level of doubt that can be considered reasonable based on historical precedent: in terms of missteps regarding scientific intervention in the past or abuses of power and dishonesty on the part of corporations.
Unfortunately, rather than learning more about the science, much of the public attention has turned towards labeling regulations. Labeling can be important, but labels like the non-GMO Project tend to capitalize on consumers' fears over GMOs rather than actually educating the public. You can read more about some of the GMO labeling in our food labels article.
Diving into the facts (and opinions)
So, let’s take a look at the realities of GMOs from a variety of different perspectives and criteria.
Human Health
Many of the most prevalent concerns regarding GMOs relate to their potential impact (typically in a negative sense) to human health. These concerns typically have to do with associated herbicides/pesticides, the possibility of the genetic make-up of these GM crops impacting their own genome (or health more generally), and distrust in the testing and regulatory bodies that approve GM foods for the market.
First, let’s talk about issues regarding direct impacts to human health. Concerns of this variety typically center around unintended consequences of genetic engineering and the possibility that a transfer of genetic information from GM crops to our DNA could occur. Some of the “unintended consequences” of particular concern include the ability to induce an allergic reaction, and the potential for damage to our internal organs via consumption. Testing of these possibilities on animals has overwhelmingly shown these crops to be safe for consumption. A collection of studies have identified a variety of serious potential health implications, such as damage to organs and a weakening of the immune system, but these studies have been heavily contested and often retracted. This constant debate in the scientific community has fueled suspicion around the potential influence of GMO corporations on our scientific institutions and regulatory bodies. There is also concern from many people and organizations that testing on the effect of GMO consumption on human bodies is not thorough enough and does not consider a large enough time frame—we cannot test the effects over a human lifetime because they haven’t been around that long! Nevertheless, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of research on GM crops suggests that they are safe to eat. Not a single verified case of illness has been attributed to the consumption of GM crops (as opposed to the pesticides they may be covered in), and, as is the case with anything in medical research, nothing can ever truly be “proven safe.” Studies can only fail to demonstrate significant risks, despite a rigorous search for them.
With regard to the transfer of genetic information from a GM crop to our bodies through consumption, while this phenomenon is possible, it is also almost universally agreed upon that the likelihood of this phenomenon is incredibly remote and has yet to be observed.
Herbicides/pesticides
While there is a reasonable amount of scientific consensus regarding the safety of GM crops in and of themselves, there is a concerning amount of evidence supporting notable risks associated with the use of herbicides/pesticides designed specifically for GM crops.
One of the promises of GM crops is that their unique pest-resistance and herbicide tolerance will allow for less time and resource consuming methods of pest management. In practice, this looks like farmers who, instead of picking weeds manually or using a variety of pest-specific pesticides to manage their crops, use catch-all pesticides like RoundUp to save time and money. What’s more, it not only simplifies and expedites the process, but also requires less pesticide to do the job (which results in less potential for exposure of the chemical to farmers and consumers). Unfortunately, these benefits do not come without their costs, and the costs can, in many cases, be significant. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, has garnered a significant amount of negative attention. Glyphosate has been assessed by a number of health organizations as a known carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) that may also have negative impacts on the liver and endocrine system. While the required levels of exposure to induce these negative consequences rarely reaches the average consumer, farm workers who are exposed to the chemical on a daily basis can often be exposed to quantities that have likely caused a tragic number of them to get incredibly sick. While glyphosate is less toxic to humans than many of the other herbicides commonly used in practice, some researchers believe glyphosate may host significant side effects in the long term.
There is also significant public concern regarding BT toxins, a trait that has been expressed through genetic engineering to allow plants to produce their own pesticide. These toxins are naturally expressed in the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), but genetic engineering allows the plant to produce the same chemical in its own cells. While this toxin has been found in humans after consuming GM crops, it is crucial to note that the expression of this toxin was engineered specifically because it is only a “toxin” to insects, and poses no threat to humans—like chocolate consumption with dogs and humans. Not only is this BT toxin safe for human consumption, it greatly reduces the need for farmers to buy and administer additional pesticide—which is good for their business and their health.
Misconceptions
There are a host of common misconceptions that drive public opinion around GMOs, and these misconceptions are typically rooted in misunderstandings and a lack of knowledge. Here are some common ones:
We have never developed food in labs before GM technology and thus it’s too early to understand how they might affect our health — we actually have been implementing mutagenic techniques for over 60 years without significant public resistance, and without any measured impacts on human health. These processes are actually responsible for many of our mainstay crops today. Mutagenic techniques scramble the DNA of plants with radiation and chemicals, and are incredibly less precise than current genetic engineering technologies.
Many GMOs carry genes from bacteria, viruses, and even animals, and this reality presents a huge threat to consumers — while this may sound unsettling, DNA from bacteria, viruses, and other animals, are already abundant in our own genome and the genome of plants all over the world. Genes cross the species boundary all the time in nature.
Our tampering with plant genomes is reckless and full of uncertainty – while the exact outcome of the insertion of new genes into existing plant genomes holds uncertainty, our ability to control and understand exactly what may have caused a given issue is vastly increased under current genetic engineering technologies (as opposed to conventional cross breeding), and thus allows us to identify and eliminate problems with far more precision.
Genes from the GM plants will enter our bodies and tamper with our own genome or the genome of potential offspring — as previously mentioned, while this is technically possible, the likelihood is so incredibly remote. This is just as likely to happen with non-GM foods as it is with GMOs.
Nutrition
Finally, it must also be noted that genetic engineering has not only the potential, but the proven ability to offer nutritional improvements that can be crucial in our fight against “hidden hunger.” Hidden hunger is a concept that describes the reality that many people live with, in which they have adequate access to calories, but inadequate access to proper nutrition, and are thus not starving but still malnutritioned. Notably, a crop called “Golden Rice” was engineered to house a substantial quantity of vitamin A, and thus fight the vitamin A deficiency which has proven deadly around the world. This crop has been approved by the US, Canada, and the Philippines.
Environmental Impact
In addition to the potential impacts that GMOs can have on human health, there is considerable attention and debate surrounding the impacts GMOs can have on the environment. The primary arguments surrounding GMOs impact on the environment include first, reductions in herbicide and pesticide use, tillage reductions and soil health improvements, and reductions in GHG emissions due to those tillage and pesticide/herbicide reductions. Second, the dangers they pose through monoculture practices and the loss of biodiversity. Third, the risk of superpest and superweed development. And lastly, a host of issues surrounding contamination by unintended cross-pollination of GM crops to non-GM plants.
Herbicides/Pesticides
GMOs in relation to herbicides/pesticides and their impact on the environment can in some cases be a double-edged sword. As previously mentioned, since their insect resistance typically warrants less use of pesticide, and their herbicide tolerance allows for the use of less herbicide, they typically result in far less chemical usage in their environments. However, since glyphosate is something of a “catch-all” herbicide, many plants and organisms that are beneficial to the environment get caught in the crossfire. This damages not only the plants themselves, but the local ecosystems that rely on them. Additionally, the use of one mode of insect resistance (BT toxins) and one mode of herbicide implementation (glyphosate) has resulted in the development of “superpests” and “superweeds” which are resistant to each one respectively, and thus require additional herbicides and pesticides to handle after all. This vicious cycle of chemical application, then superpest/superweed development, then the application of newer, stronger herbicides/pesticides, has led many farmers to actually use more herbicides and pesticides than their non-GMO counterparts. The response from Biotech companies has largely been to develop and produce stronger herbicides and pesticides, and the crops that can withstand them. There has been expected pushback from farmers and environmental advocates who fear the damage these new chemicals could do to farmers and the environments they work on. This process of increasing chemical usage more and more, to stay ahead of the evolutionary curve, is called the “agricultural treadmill.”
Soil Health
Another common “sell” for GM crops is their reduced need for tillage. Tillage is the process of agitating soil for aeration, uprooting weeds, and mixing in fertilizers. Unfortunately, tillage can be incredibly destructive to the structure and quality of soil, and new progressive technologies are trying to move away from tillage. The relationship between GM crops and herbicides/pesticides can create scenarios in which soil health, due to reduced chemical exposure and a reduced need for tillage, can be improved. This, when paired with the reduced fossil fuel expenditure (as a result of needing less use from vehicles and machines), reveals a great potential benefit of GM crops. Unfortunately, as we previously mentioned, vicious cycles with chemicals and superpests can result in a net increase of chemical application and thus a rapid decline in soil quality and health. So much of these comparisons are situationally dependent.
Contamination
One of the most common critiques regarding GM crops and the impact they can have on their environment relates to “contamination”. Contamination, or “cross-pollination”, is the process by which the seeds or pollen from GM crops are spread by wind or pollinators to neighboring lands. This “genetic drift,” presents a variety of serious issues. These crops can become invasive to neighboring species and compete with other plants that are vital to the health and maintenance of their ecosystems. Additionally, GM crops that produce their own insecticides may appear outside of agricultural land and cause significant damage to local insect populations, which can be severely detrimental to ecosystem health. Finally, there are incredibly damaging economic/financial implications to contamination, but we’ll delve into that more shortly.
Biodiversity
Finally, a consequence of the simplified-farming techniques that “RoundUp-ready” crops promote is the prevalence of monocultures and the subsequent reduction in biodiversity that has proven vital to the long term health and resilience of our food systems. Genetic diversity is a crucial asset —especially in the age of global climate change—in the protection of our food sources because it greatly increases the likelihood that, in the face of a sudden threat, we already have crops that can persevere. Even if one variety of a species gets wiped out, there are other varieties with different unique traits that can survive and thrive in new environments. This happened in the historic Irish potato famine of the 1800s, in which one disease wiped out the single potato species that Ireland depended on for their diet. Events like this have occurred countless times around the world with other crops. Monocropping and the prevention of farmers from saving successful variety of seeds has led to devastation and a horrific loss of life. We cannot stress enough how important this is.
Economics
While great debate rages on regarding the impacts of GMOs on human health and the environment, it seems that the only entities that deny the financial strain that the GMO industry has put on farmers are the corporations who sell GM seeds and their herbicide/pesticide counterparts. GMO corporations insist that the increase in yields, reduced need for chemical applications, and reduced need for tillage provides a great advantage to farmers who use their GM seeds. This narrative, however, neglects the reality of this industry for many farmers across the nation and across the world. The reality includes soaring seed prices, incredibly strict policies regarding “intellectual property rights”, reductions in food selling prices, complications regarding international trading, and more. Let’s take a look.
Corporate power
A significant concern regarding GMOs has to do with the corporations that currently control them, and the large scale consolidation that has developed within the industry. Since the commercialization of GMOs, the seed market has been effectively reduced to the control of only four companies: Monsanto/Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow. This consolidation has allowed for unsustainable increases in seed prices (as much as 3-6 times more than conventional seeds, in addition to licensing fees), as well as patent-related policies that force farmers to discard extra seeds at the end of each season, and hold them liable if any inadvertent cross-pollination occurs. Seed saving is an essential part of keeping farming a financially sustainable enterprise. What’s more, these policies often go so far as to dictate how farmers can grow their crops, with inspections from these private companies written into the contracts.
These restrictions not only place immense pressure on farmers, but researchers as well. Patent-protected seeds restrict researchers from conducting studies on GM seeds without paying licensing fees, which slow the progress of independent GMO research and progress of the field in general. Additionally, these restrictions to independent researchers make it more difficult for impartial reviews on the GM seeds to be conducted, which not only gives corporations more power to do as they please, but continues to fuel public skepticism in the technology.
Finally, since many of these crops are designed to be resistant to a specific herbicide, like glyphosate/Roundup, corporations have monopolized the herbicide industry as well. This monopoly on all of the inputs required for growing the crop allows for further abuses in pricing and further pressure on farmers.
Gains and losses for farmers
No one feels the economic implications of the GMO industry quite like farmers. Farmers see first-hand the gains offered by increased yields and reduced costs associated with herbicides, pesticides, and tillage. But they also see the losses due to soaring seed prices, licensing fees and contracts, potential lawsuits related to inadvertent contamination, superweed/pest management, and impacts to trading markets. Farmers are on the front lines. It may be easiest to describe this agricultural climate by separating it into “pros and cons”.
First, let’s talk about the economic benefits that GMOs offer farmers in slightly more depth. Increased productivity is a huge selling point for many farmers. With crops that not only grow larger and more quickly, but are also more resistant to a variety of environmental factors, like drought, farmers can expect a larger amount of sellable crops (as much as 20%+) from the same inputs, leading to increased profits. When increase in production is paired with a reduced need for herbicides and pesticides (in some cases), farmers can expect as much as a 65% increase in overall profit. Additionally, in the face of disease or increasingly destructive environmental conditions, GMOs can offer farmers an avenue through which their operations can be more resilient and persevere through hardships.
Now, while these growth and profit projections are promising, it’s important to recognize that they are not always the reality for farmers internationally. When the rubber hits the road, these projections are just projections, while many of the hurdles farmers face are far more concrete. As we previously mentioned, farmers typically find themselves locked in an incredibly restrictive relationship with GMO corporations. Relationships in which seeds that were bought in excess of the farmers’ needs must be discarded, new seeds must be bought from the same company or else contractual penalties may be applied, and licensing fees must be purchased to continue to use these seeds. Unfortunately, the trouble with seeds doesn’t end there. As we previously mentioned, patents and intellectual property rights have made use of these seeds a particularly risky and precarious business. In the event of inadvertent cross-pollination—either in the case of a farmer’s seeds drifting to another environment and causing damage, or in the case of a farmer finding GM crops they didn’t purchase on their farm— all liability is held by the farmers, and the penalties they face can be severe. Farmers can be hit with crippling lawsuits by huge corporations that wish to make an example of them, but for many farmers, this is the least of their worries. For farmers finding GM crops they didn’t purchase on their farm, non-GMO markets may shut them out completely, devastating their business and potentially eliminating their buyer relationships for years to come. Additionally, as a result of increased yields on a global scale, many smaller farmers have been cornered by global food price reductions that they often aren’t able to keep up with. Finally, as a direct consequence of the GM technology that has been developed to help them, the implications of the continued production of superpests that farmers now face as a result of their heavy use of chemicals can trap them in a vicious and expensive cycle of increasingly toxic chemical application.
Global Economics
While farmers are at the front lines regarding the economic repercussions of the GMO industry, the impact is also felt at the global scale in trading markets. Regulations mandating the allowance of GM crops varies substantially from country to country, and discrepancies regarding permitted GM crops can cause massive disruptions in the global trade market. While the US has welcomed GMO technologies with open arms, much of the world—including many countries throughout Asia, Europe, and Africa—still place bans on GM crops. The restrictions limit the availability of global markets for many US farmers who have been pushed to farm GMOs. What’s more, as a result of inadvertent cross-contamination from farms producing GM crops, many farmers who still have working relationships with international markets have been devastated by inspections that have found genetic material from GM crops on their farms and thus barred them from the market they once relied on. This effect not only impacts farmers whose crops go directly to GM or non-GM markets, but also those whose crops are used as components in processed products, where the presence of GM ingredients can bar their sale and thus impact many different businesses simultaneously. This asynchrony has resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of trading, and severely damaged many international trading relationships.
Regulations
While the three main topics we chose to categorize issues into were “human health”, “environmental health”, and “economics”, we would be remiss to exclude a discussion regarding regulations (testing, labeling, etc.). Regulations are deeply intertwined with all of the aforementioned categories. They help determine the safety and approval of GMOs and associated technologies for human consumption and environmental application, and are a critical component in the ways in which corporations function, farmers operate, and global markets interact.
To understand how regulations impact all of these entities, we can use the US as a case study. Three federal agencies oversee the regulation of GM foods nationwide. The FDA handles GMOs destined for human or animal consumption, APHIS evaluates GMO biotechnologies, and the EPA regulates and monitors the use of pesticides and herbicides. These regulatory bodies ensure that the GMOs are safe for consumption, are grown in a way that is safe to the environment, and will continue to grow and interact with our environment in a way that is safe and predictable. Before these criteria are met, GM crops are not allowed for commercial use. That said, there remains significant skepticism regarding the testing and approval of GMOs and associated technologies. This is due to lobbying power from massive GMO corporations, as well as the fact that many of the testing bodies are funded by the companies whose products they’re testing—presenting a clear conflict of interest. What’s more, many independent scientists feel pressured to explore the broader applications and progress of GM technology, as opposed to the risks they may present. This is due to a history of more funding awarded to those exploring progress and development, with attacks of credibility on those exploring the risks. Now, it is worth mentioning that many of the studies that have gained notoriety for their claims that reject the safety of GMOs, have been challenged by scientists and organizations around the world for supposed “sloppy science” and improper procedures. Correlation does not equal causation, and thus, the fact that scientific consensus sides with the interests of GMO corporations, does not plainly indicate that the findings are false or contrived. However, the continuation of systems that exist within clear conflicts of interest should alarm the general public and our governments, if not only to ensure the safety of our people and environments, to also instill a greater sense of trust in these technologies.
Moving forward
Ok so WHAT do we do with all of this information? How do we reconcile the incredible benefits that this technology may offer with the harsh realities of “the business of GMOs” and the risks they may present. This is a complicated topic, and there is no “one road” to a better future with GMOs, but we do believe a better future includes them. How do we get there?
Education, education, education. Food clouded in misconceptions will never be accepted, and if we’re unaware of the realities our farmers face, there will never be the public pressure needed to enact systematic change. Studies indicate that people who are more familiar with bioengineering tend to view GMOs less negatively. Our understanding of the technology’s capabilities may allow us to push the industry from one that largely serves corporations, to one that better addresses the needs of the people: access to affordable, safe, nutritious food.
Trust & Transparency. We need our governments and regulatory bodies to disentangle themselves from the influence of GMO corporations. Without true transparency, skepticism regarding the testing, approval, and regulation of GMO technologies will persist, and “scientific consensus” will continue to be shadowed by doubt. This step is a baseline if we want data we can trust.
Regulation. The companies that develop GM seeds and sell them to farmers need to be more heavily regulated. Antitrust enforcement (laws that prevent monopolies and promote healthy, fair competition) is needed in this highly consolidated industry, and regulations protecting farmers from paralyzing seed prices and contracts need to be put in place. Additionally, we need to ensure that the prevalence of monoculture farming techniques is mitigated. Monocultures can wreak havoc on the soil we depend on, degrade our ecosystems, and expose our societies to a host of significant risks associated with a lack of biodiversity.
Accountability. Too much risk is placed on our farmers, and it perpetuates a toxic relationship that leaves all of the power in the hands of corporations. This is especially apparent with small farmers operating around the globe. These corporations need to bear responsibility with respect to cross-pollination and other unforeseen impacts of GMO technologies. This includes the impacts of the herbicides and pesticide technologies that these companies so often pair with their crops.
Small-Scale Agency. Our current GMO technologies are closely guarded by a host of information rights protections, like patents and licensing contracts. If we want these technologies to develop more quickly and in ways that can better suit the needs of more localized regions, we need to take a more “open-source” approach. This approach will allow small-scale operations to not only develop seeds that will perform better in their specific regions, but will offer the type of global biodiversity in GMOs that is required for long-term resilience, and propel the field forward exponentially. Freedom drives innovation.