So far, all the studies, even those by scientists who are not supported by GMO companies, show that there is little harm to human health by current GMO crops. Now this may change in the future, depending upon what genetics are modified, but so far there is relatively no significant difference between the physical effects of selected breeding and genetically modified food. In both cases, the end result is a plant or animal that contains the elements we want with less of what we do not want. But, in the real world, there are differences between the two and that is what I am concerned with today. These differences caused me to take a stand on GMO.
—**—
Definition of GMO
Britannica writes that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are organisms whose DNA has been modified in a laboratory by scientists in order to favor the expression of a desired physiological trait(s), or to favor the production of a desired biological product(s), through genetic engineering or transgenic technology.
The World Health Organization (WHO), adds an additional component to its definitions (bolded section made by me): organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.
The Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops (CGEC) adds another specific (bolded): genetic engineering is a process by which scientists introduce or change DNA, RNA, or proteins in an organism to express a new trait, or change the expression of an existing trait.
Information Video on Norman Borloug +
GMO food helping populations.
Benign Help
Let me be clear, so long as the genetic modification matches what the selection process could produce I am in general okay with GMO activity as a concept. The reason is because I recognize its potential to fast-track beneficial properties in food.
For example, Reuters wrote that globally, up to 250M children are deficient in VitA according to the World Health Organization. This deficiency can cause blindness and other issues, and if all children in these VitA-deprived areas were given enough VitA, it is estimated that up to 2.7M annual deaths could be prevented. So using GMO techniques to up VitA in rice, a staple in these areas, is a humanitarian good thing.
Partial GMO History
- 1973, when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen worked together to engineer the first successful genetically engineered (GE) organism.
- In the 1980s, biologists used genetic engineering in plants to express many traits, such as: longer shelf-life for fruit, higher vitamin content, and resistance to diseases and pests.
- Then in 1980, the USA Supreme Court ruled that scientists from General Electric could patent bacteria that were genetically engineered to break down crude oil to help with oil spills. Essentially a corporation could now own a living organism.
- A few years later, in 1982, and the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first human medication produced by a genetically modified organism. Bacteria had been genetically engineered to synthesize and sell human insulin to diabetes patients (Humulin).
- Since the 1990s, USA allowed crops to be bioengineered for traits for herbicide and insect resistance; and laws were introduced to protect the ownership of these new bioengineered crops.
- In 2015 the main GMO crops were:
- soybean (83% of land in soybean production)
- cotton (75% of land in cotton production)
- maize (29% of land in maize production)
- canola (24% of land in canola production)
- 2021 four corporations — Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina and Limagrain — control more than 50% of the world’s (GMO) seeds
- 7 March 2022 the FDA approved first CRISPR cows for food named: PRLR-SLICK. This is in addition to intentional genomic alterations in groups of goat, chicken, salmon, rabbit and, most recently, in a line of pigs.
GMO Research Problems
Early Years (1970 – 2010)
Most of the oft referenced initial studies were conducted by biotechnology companies or their paid scientists, who are themselves responsible for commercializing these plants. So each of the initial studies were very positive about outcomes and played down the negatives (1 2018; 1 2016). Some of the early published work even had to be reviewed by companies that owned the seed or plant, before they could be approved for publication (1 2009).
Originally the studies indicated GMO plants provided higher yields than conventionally grown food. Studies on certain GMO crops now have found little to no yield improvements, and long-term studies of organic farming show that organic can match conventional agriculture’s yields (1 2021; 1 2009).
These research scientists and companies were commercializing GMO plants designed to live through the application of various icides (pesticides, fungicides, bactericides, herbicide, etc.) and were also the major manufacturer of those products as well. This basic conflict of interest was not readily acknowledged in the early years, and is now only brought up by farmers and anti-GMO advocates.
Studies in the 2000s indicated positive economic outcomes for modified soybean, cotton, and maize, but noted that where resistance-management strategies (such as spraying with commercial herbicide glyphosate) were not followed, damaging levels of resistance evolved in some targeted insects. Thus, the problem with yields was caused by farmers and not the company or GMO plant.
Reviews also indicated that GMO foods were as safe as foods from non-GMO crops due to no significant increase in human cancers from before to after GMO foods were introduced. But also the (CGEC) writes that these studies indicate the design, and analysis of many animal-feeding studies, were not optimal for considering human health. But humans and animals are not the same and animals appearing unharmed by the GMO foods does not prove humans are unharmed.
A literature review (2011) on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (mainly from 2000-2006) lists a variety of articles conducting differing research aspects of GMO plants. But the authors noted that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited; and still that it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.
Current (2011-2020)
But recently, other people are noting issues beyond the more simple question if a GMO food harms human health. For one thing, our food industry has been concentrating for decades now, and is truly dominated by only a handful of very powerful corporations that control nearly every aspect of how our food is planted, harvested, packaged and sold.
- There are limited studies on outcrossing (which has happened): where GMO plants migrate to conventional crops (or wild species) and the interaction leads to plants unacceptable for human or animal consumption (1 ).
- GMO food is not handled equally all around the world, how do we know we are not importing problem foods?
- Who controls what research is being conducted in secret? How do we know the companies are not researching into dangerous territory?
- Concerns are raising over the possibility of gene transfer from GM foods to bacteria that live in the gastrointestinal tract, or body cells, with negative impact on human health.
- Is it possible to make GM food that trigger allergic responses? Or can the change build up in our bodies to a negative response?
- Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms is a low risk, but nevertheless a risk. This is a naturally occurring process so the likelhood of it happening is above zero. What do we do when that happens?
- A vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). Showing that when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.
- If companies own a ”kill switch” on food or organisms, they can help prevent the wild release of those gmo’s into the world (1 2015) but can they also use that to hold us hostage, or governments, by having the key to stop the kill? A bit conspiracy I know, but within possibilities.
Concerns Not About Our Health
With GMOs we have transformed our food into a legally owned, patented commodity, controlled by a handful of multinational corporations, that have stripped farmers (and consumers) of their rights. This means that currently our farming systems have most crops/seeds regulated through patents, contracts, user-agreements, trade secrets, and licensing. In fact, farmers do not really buy seeds anymore, and they cannot save seeds from the current crop, they can only rent the seeds from the seed owners for the current year through harvest. Plus some contracts force farmers to buy certain pesticides for those plants.
- Economic reviews and studies have not taken loss of seed diversity into account as more farmers are being contractually obligated to using GMO seeds and the related pesticides (1 2021).
- Economic reviews have not considered the full impact of seed ownership and litigation on farmers financial situations: Seed Laws that Criminalizes Farmers (1; 1 2014; 1 2008)
- The courts and government have allowed companies to create monopolies and to hold farmers to untenable contracts regarding GMO foods, where is the analysis and review on these issues before approvals were given (1 2015; 1 2013; 1 2008).
- Cultural impacts on Indigenous Peoples, their land and food sovereignty has not been part of the evaluations of GMO food (1 2018).
- A diversity of plants, lead to a diversity of diet, leads to healthy people; whereas a limited field of GM crops leads to a monoculture of only one variety. Where is the analysis to show which has the greater good?
In Conclusion
Summary
As someone who writes and thinks a lot about food, here are the conclusions I have come to:
- GMO and selective breeding are similar at a very basic level, and could be used to improve the nutrition density of the plant foods we currently grow and consume.
- Similarly, GMO and selective breeding could assist with specific vitamin or mineral deficiencies around the world: VitA rice, Iodine in salt, etc.
- Currently GMO foods are not listed as part of the “organic” label, and I would continue that exclusion at this point. In the future, I would only allow it if the result could have been matched by selective breeding, and the GMO process just did it faster.
- I do not agree with mixing plant and animal-type organisms, programming kill switches in plants or organisms owned by corporations, or changing food just for marketing or transportation purposes.
- I am of the opinion that under no circumstances should any corporation own seeds or plants or organisms. No company should own life, or the necessity of life. Just as no company should own the air or water.
- Corporations are inherently built for greed, for shareholder or owner(s) profits, and should never control the means of farming. I find the current contractual obligations farmers have with some of the major agricultural corporations to be legally and morally obscene.
- I do not believe any corporation is worthy of trust to do the right thing, and not bend the rules if they can get away with it. Just think about the huge companies that have already failed due to greed (ENRON), disregard for the rules (Lehman Brothers), outright cheating (Volkswagon), or showing a lack of ethics and responsibilities (Theranos); note all of these company names were pulled from a simple Google search, give it a try and see who you come up with.
- Local failures generally stay local, multi-national corporations can make a wrong decision and have devastating global implications.
- Food is more than necessity, it has cultural roots and spiritual overtones for Indigenous Peoples and ethnic communities throughout the world and should never be owned or defined for them.
- Corporate ownership of seeds leads to mono-agriculture and a loss of varieties of foods. This puts human survival at risk, for we become less capable to meeting changing circumstances. Plant and seed diversity is the only thing to assure we can deal with changes in our climate, air, soil, etc.
Who I Trust
What I can say is that I do trust regional, family-run, small to medium sized farms to do the right thing as they are part of a community. They have relationships with consumers and their own land. If they do anything wrong, the impact is local and more manageable.
I trust the farmers, consumers, and foragers who are part of the free-seed and home gardening movements trying to maintain, and seek out for saving, additional varieties of plants we can eat.
GMO Decision
As a result of all this, I feel:
- Neutral about GMO plants in principle, if they are a faster type of traditionally-selective breeding process.
- But would probably not willingly eat a GMO plant if there were other choices.
- Am against GMO farm animals.
- I am against combining animals and plants.
- Am against any corporation owning seeds or plants or living organisms.
Thus, I have to come out against GMO as it currently is practiced and understood, since I abhor their results in the legal, agricultural, and economic areas of our lives.
What about you? Where do you stand?
—Patty
—**—
