The Cold, Hard, Facts About GMOs

By Laurel Maloy, contributing writer, Food Online

The truth about Genetically Modified Organisms used in foods and food production is that there is no truth… yet

Some of us have been guilty about climbing on soapboxes and sounding off — yes, I’m raising my hand — while some are crying foul loud and clear. For the most part, people land firmly on one side or the other, especially about the question of labeling foodstuffs containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). To settle the matter in my own mind, I decided to do some research and list the pros and cons of utilizing GMOs; research the research that’s been done, and then let each person decide for themselves. The gloves are off in this epic battle with no clear winner or loser in sight.  

The proponents of Genetically Modified (GM) foods cite these positive attributes:

• More food is available to more people, the result of higher-production rates in less time
• Faster growth and production reduces the economic burden of feeding the world
• GM foods are more resistant to diseases, herbicides, pests, and viruses, therefore require fewer chemical treatments. The logical inference is they are better for the environment
• The nutritional value of the food can be boosted by introducing transgenic variety
• There is the potential, through genetic engineering, to render foods non-allergenic
• GM foods are said to have a better taste and be of a higher quality
• They transport better, stress less, and have a longer shelf-life
• GM foods can be made to taste sweeter, providing encouragement for people to eat healthier

Actually, GM foods have been on the market for almost 20 years, most of us unaware that we were eating them. The USDA estimates that approximately 75 percent of the corn and 94 percent of all soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. This leads experts to guess that as much as 75 percent of the processed foods consumed in the U.S. contain GM ingredients.

The original purpose was to improve production, especially when it came to herbicide application. Fields could be sown with GM seeds and then an herbicide applied to kill the weeds competing for growing space. Voila! Better production utilizing a lot less work.  Then, as the technology improved and the various applications became apparent, the race was on to genetically engineer the biggest and strongest. Seeds were developed with a higher resistance to the common diseases and pests that could wipe out a farmer’s field overnight. Production was maximized while costs were minimized. This is not necessarily a bad thing; this is what free enterprise is all about.

The opponents of GM foods cite these negative outcomes:

• Super weeds are emerging, the direct result of evolving with a resistance to glyphosate, the most-common herbicide with which GM foods are produced
• Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) is produced by plants engineered to produce their own insecticide. BT-resistant bugs are the result
• Reduced tilling due to reduced weeds can result in less-healthy soil, lower crop yields, and can impact the environment negatively
• GM foods cannot be contained in GM fields. Cross-contamination has occurred, GM wheat showing up where it was not planted
• The plants that are naturally resistant to diseases and pests have been ingested for a long time, with the human body adapting to these substances over time; however, GM plants are fairly new to the human race and it’s too soon to know the long-term effects
• GM foods mean big profits for big companies while possibly putting the consumer at risk
• Foods not genetically modified are safer; a new breed of food processors are labeling produce and products with non-GMO labels

How is food genetically modified? It involves adding a gene for a specific purpose, such as enabling a plant to resist a viral or bacterial attack, or to make it detrimental to a specific pest. The genetic code is therefore altered. The same methods are now being utilized to alter the genetic code of food animals, such as GM salmon, resulting in fish growing twice as fast. They are still not approved, though the writing is on the wall.

Studies have come in on both sides of the equation and all have been highly criticized as bunk. The truth is that there are no long-term, definitive studies to prove that GMO foods are good, bad, or somewhere in the middle.

There is plenty to read on the subject. Some articles, such as Embracing the Promise of GMOs, states unequivocally that the campaign against biotechnology and the subsequent labeling controversy is based on misinformation and fear. Another such article is GMOs: Different Schools of Thought, Highly Beneficial: Increased Yield and Hardiness. When you read about genetically modified “golden rice” preventing blindness in millions of poor children, it’s hard to come down on the negatives side of GMOs. The same organization, Globalization 101, also published GMOs” Different Schools of Thought, Highly Dangerous: Tinkering with Nature which touts the prudence of treading carefully until GMOs can be proven, without a doubt, to be harmless. The arguments here are just as convincing.

To label or not to label, that is the question. All indications are that this will be a long and protracted battle. Proponents for GMOs are against labeling and fear a labeling requirement will only be the result of fear-mongering. Opponents of GMOs are all for labeling, citing their rights to know exactly what they are buying and eating, regardless the outcome of current or future studies. There is no easy answer; there is not enough evidence to make a decision with any finality one way or another.