Fears, Not Facts, Support G.M.O.-Free Food
By JANE E. BRODY
Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat, consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled “G.M.O.-free” in the not-too-distant future. As happened with the explosion of gluten-free products, food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether it is scientifically justified.
Responding to consumer concerns about genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s, in foods, as well as individual company and state actions on G.M.O. labeling, the Department of Agriculture last month announced a voluntary certification program that food companies would pay for to have their products labeled G.M.O.-free.
By the end of the month, Abbott, the maker of Similac Advance, began selling a G.M.O.-free version of the nation’s leading commercial baby formula (it already has such a product, sold as Similac Organic) to give consumers “peace of mind”.
In April, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced it would start preparing foods with no G.M.O.s, although the restaurant will not be free of such ingredients.
Last year, Vermont passed a law requiring the labeling of foods that contain G.M.O.s (Connecticut and Maine have labeling laws that will go into effect only when surrounding states also pass them). And Whole Foods Market, with 410 stores in 42 states, Canada and Britain, announced that it would require all foods they sell with G.M.O.s to be so labeled by 2018.
G.M.O. labeling is already required in 64 countries, including those of the European Union; Russia; Japan; China; Australia; Brazil; and a number of countries in Africa, where despite rampant food scarcity and malnutrition, American exports that could save millions of lives have been rejected because the crops contained G.M.O.s.
However, a review of the pros and cons of G.M.O.s strongly suggests that the issue reflects a poor public understanding of the science behind them, along with a rebellion against the dominance of food and agricultural conglomerates. The anti-G.M.O. movement, I’m afraid, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is needed is a dispassionate look at what G.M.O.s mean and their actual and potential good, not just a fear of harmful possibilities.
Let’s start with the facts. Humans have been genetically modifying food and feed plants and animals for millenniums, until recently only by repeatedly crossing existing ones with relatives that have more desirable characteristics. It can take many years, even decades, to achieve a commercially viable product this way because unwanted traits can come in the resulting hybrids. While it may be nice to have a tomato that can withstand long-distance travel, the fruit also has to ripen evenly and, most important, taste good.
Genetic engineering makes it possible to achieve a desired outcome in one generation. It introduces only a single known gene or small group of genes that dictate production of desired proteins into a plant, imparting characteristics such as tolerance of frost, drought or salt, or resistance to disease or weed killer. The technique can also be used to enhance a plant’s growth or content of an essential nutrient, or, in the case of animals, reduce the feed they need.
Thus, Golden Rice, genetically enhanced to be rich in beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, can counter blindness in rice-dependent populations; another gene inserted into rice increases its iron content to fight iron-deficiency anemia; a gene from ocean pout speeds the growth of farmed salmon, reducing its dependence on wild fish feed; and a bacterial gene inserted into the DNA of corn enables it to better withstand drought.
The often-voiced concern that introducing genes from different species is unnatural and potentially dangerous ignores the fact that all living organisms, including humans, share thousands, even millions of genes with other species (we share 84 percent of our genes with dogs!).
As for safety, every G.M.O. must be evaluated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency before it can be marketed. Developers must test the product for toxicity and allergenicity as well as assure that its nutrient content is at least as good as its non-G.M.O. counterpart.
Yes, this depends on the developer’s honesty, but note: There is no such testing required for traditionally bred foods, any number of which are known to cause life-threatening reactions in some people. Many popular non-G.M.O. foods, including broccoli, mushrooms and carrots, contain natural toxins, though the foods are not harmful to people when consumed in normal amounts. Kiwis, with hundreds of novel proteins, many of which have allergic potential, were never tested for allergenicity before they were marketed.
Peanuts, shellfish, celery and strawberries have not been banned despite some people being allergic to them. It may even be possible to use genetic engineering to get rid of the allergenic proteins in such foods.
Other actual and potential applications of the technique include using bacteria outfitted with the human insulin gene to produce insulin to treat diabetes; using a yeast with a gene for chymosin from the stomach lining of calves to churn out a vegetarian version of the enzyme needed to produce cheese; and employing various genetically modified organisms to produce vast quantities of vaccines, antibodies or drugs rapidly and inexpensively.
Safety testing of G.M.O.s often goes beyond their intended use. In an effort to enrich soybeans used for animal feed with the amino acid methionine, a gene from Brazil nuts was used. But when testing showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts produced antibodies to the protein in engineered soybeans, research on the modified beans was abandoned.
A legitimate safety concern involves possible delayed deleterious effects of genetically modified products on consumers, the environment or the “balance” of nature. As with an organism’s natural genes, introduced ones can mutate or disrupt the function of neighboring genes. Thus, continued monitoring of their effects is essential and, as with defective cars, malfunctioning products may have to be recalled.
Are there risks to G.M.O.s that scientists have yet to consider or discover? Of course there are. Nothing in this life is risk-free, but that is not enough reason to reject valuable scientific advances.
Another objection to G.M.O.s, however, could jeopardize the government’s ability to certify products as G.M.O.-free: G.M.O. seeds can sometimes escape where they’re grown and contaminate fields of non-G.M.O. crops, and scores of minor ingredients in food products, like cornstarch, may be derived from a G.M.O. crop. While there are no guarantees, the best way for concerned consumers to avoid G.M.O. products is to choose those certified as organic, which the U.S.D.A. requires to be G.M.O.-free.
h f
I am tired of this false argument that GMO's pose no harm, and are the same type of gene modification that is essential in evolution.
First, the harm GMO crops do are to the environment, by allowing normal crops to be blasted with pesticides, so that all other edge species are killed. The decline of Monarch butterflies, previously able to survive on edge growth of plants like Jimson Weed, now no longer have even that fragmentary landscape. The increase in mono-culture farming is also causing Monarch die-back, but that fact does not let round-up resistant crops off the hook.
Secondly, GMO crops harm the economy. The persecution of farmers, the concentration of wealth in the big pesticide companies (Monsanto) that dependence on these GM crops causes is WELL documented!!!
This is the opposite direction we want our agriculture to go in.
We want to preserve local seed varieties, we want to promote small-scale farming that does not require transport to the other side of the earth for sale, and we want to cultivate environmental health for our world around us.
You cannot compare the anti-GM-ers to the anti-VAXXers - the ill effects on the economy (concentration of wealth) and the environment (species die-off, loss of local seed stock) are documented and real.
This is all I am allowed to write, but I could go on.
W DeVore, Ohio
Ms. Brody, you're not answering the right question. The question is whether the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in the production of many genetically modified foods - corn, soy, sugar beets, etc. - is safe for human consumption. Monsanto of course says that it is safe. But can we trust the company that makes glyphosate to answer this question in an unbiased manner? Take a look at this question, if you dare, and I think you will find that the picture regarding gmo's is not so clear as you have represented it to be.
T.R. Morris, ND Seattle, WA
I don't really like the idea of penguin genes in frost resistant peaches, and I do have some concern that GMOs are more likely to cause food allergies and sensitivities. That's not my major concern though. I am a physician and am anti GMO for different reasons. GMO crops inherently lack the diversity needed to evolve and resist various infections--that will become more likely as global climate change progresses. This puts our entire food supply at risk. GMOs are being engineered to survive astounding levels of pesticides and herbicides--and many are being engineered by the same company that manufactures the #1 herbicide (Monsanto's Atrazine or Roundup). These pesticides are bad for us, the soil, the soil microbiome, wildlife, the water supply, and most importantly, the bees that the entire existence of any agriculture is entirely dependent upon. Monsanto shamelessly tried to get away with putting "terminator genes" into their crops so that farmers worldwide would be 100% dependent on buying fresh seed from the corporation every year--disrupting the venerated practice of saving seed from what was grown every year. That GMO companies have aggressively sued independent corn & soy farmers who were merely the victims of downwind GMO pollen from was an atrocious example of a corporate land grab by big agriculture. There might be a few nice features of GMO crops, but the risks FAR outweigh the benefits and the only reward is going to some seriously "bad apple" agribusiness giants.
Anna Brussels
Perhaps the jury is out as to whether G.M.O. foods are safe. But that is the least of my concerns. The patenting of life, the monopoly of the food supply by a corporation that thinks only of generating wealth for itself, the restrictions on farmers saving seeds, which they have done since the beginning of agriculture, harsh and unfair legal action that such corporations have taken against farmers, the destruction of crop and food diversity as monocrops are favored, and much more. This is all very wrong on an ethical level and poses a huge risk to our society and environment. Human health and safety is but one consideration. Why always focus on this and none of the other issues?
fact or friction? maryland
It's sad to see how big agribusiness has won the minds of nearly everyone in the media, who now parrot baseless claims that GMOs are proven safe and that there's no way to feed the planet without GMOs.
Ms. Brody is indistinguishable from spokespeople for big agribusiness. How about giving equal and intelligent, substantive consideration of the concerns regarding GMOs?
Let's start with the fact that genetic engineering is absolutely not the same as plant breeding. GMO crops are engineered by injecting genes from completely different species. The GMO crops resulting from genetic engineering could never result from plant breeding, even if you had thousands of years to try.
Most GMO crops are engineered by injecting genes from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis to produce an insecticide in the cells of the plant. This government-regulated insecticide is known as Bt toxin. When you eat foods made from GMO crops, you are eating this insecticide.
Most GMO crops are also engineered to be immune to weed killers like glyphosate (used in RoundUp), or 2,4-D (used in Agent Orange), so more can be applied to farm fields. These toxic chemicals end up in the the soil and water, the GMO crops you eat, and everyone's bodies.
The FDA, which is arguably under the control of big agribusiness and their lobbyists, has never required independent, long-term testing of GMOs. They have not truly been proven safe. That is why 64 other countries ban or require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
Vera Calabria Los Angeles
I am truly baffled that this article quotes science as a reason for safety. There are no long-term tests.
But there IS knowledge that most of the pesticides are carcinogenic, that they kill off the bees, that without the bees' pollination we really will have severe food shortages, etc., etc.
And how to honestly insist that eating a fish with growth-hormones will not affect my own hormone system or bones is simply astounding. And here too, there are no long-term tests.
Nicole San Francisco
You have completely failed to mention genetic modification that included inserting chemicals (namely Roundup and glyphosate) into our foods. This does become a problem and the people should have a right to know about this. You mention that thousands of people in other countries could benefit from GMO's grown here and sent three, however you did not mention that Monsanto (the company that sells foods to other countries only sells foods that are grown from terminator seeds. These only grow for one generation. Making a system that is completely dependent on that one company for all of their food needs with no ability to grow their own. It holds entire impoverished countries and communities hostage with out the ability to be self reliant. In further regard to GMO foods, and Monsanto in particular, even farmers in the US are held hostage to their company. When plants cross pollinate with other farms near by, any plant that is produced that has any trace of trademarked genes in them is owned by Monsanto and the farmer has to pay royalties on that.. even if they never purchased the seeds in the first place!
You mention in your article that the public is misinformed about the dangers of GMO's. I argue that you yourself are misinformed. Health problems are not the only problems that erupt from the use of GMOS.
Bill Ithaca, NY
As a scientist, I find the scientific illiteracy of Americans, on everything from GMO's to climate change, extremely disheartening. This ignorance is combined with an arrogance in which people who know nothing of science think they know more than scientists who've spent their careers studying these things.
Thanks for the clear article, Ms. Brody.
Kelly V Brooklyn, NY
I continue to be disappointed in the New York Times' reporting/defense of GMOs, including today's lead article in the Health section. I'm not a fan of fad diets or uneducated, diet-related claims either, but the issue of GMOs is extremely nuanced and should be treated as such. Many of us who are skeptical of GMOs, and believe in food labeling, are not only (or just) concerned about our personal health at the expense of the developing world's poor (despite the fact that the majority of GMO crops are not destined for human food, but rather for animal feed, textiles and biofuels and that GMOs have not increased productivity: data from the USA's Department of Agriculture shows that there has been no recorded increase in soy and corn yields since the introduction of GMOs). We are ALSO concerned about the environmental impact of GMOs (GMOs have lead to a net increase in pesticide use - meaning herbicides plus insecticides - of 404 million pounds, a 7 percent gain) and the threat they pose to farmers' sovereignty around the world. I'm all for continued discussion for and against GMOs, but let's do so with all of the issues on the table.
Jeff US
The problem may be less the genetic modification of the plant and more that the plant gets drenched with Round-Up during its growth. The amount of Round Up is probably increasing as noxious species develop immunity to it.
As to the "scientific community," one has to wonder (if not believe) that most extant studies have been commissioned by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra and frankly cannot be trusted.
Nota Demo Crat California
Most GMO crops are "Roundup Ready" types that can be sprayed with glyphosate weed killer and not be killed with the weeds. This has lead to millions of gallons more herbicide sprayed on our land, in the air and in our water. Explain why more toxins in our environment is a good thing and I will buy more GMO's.
JAE Kansas
Sixty-four countries already require GMO labeling. It seems to me that fact alone would give one pause. Are all of these other countries ruled by irrational fears and lacking in scientific expertise? Are other countries that heartless and lacking in reason that they make the choice to allow millions to die rather than accept American GMO foods? I don't think this article is nearly as balanced and reasonable as it is trying to appear.
TMBM Jamaica Plain
And there lies the problem, all the way down in the last paragraph. "G.M.O. seeds can sometimes escape when they're grown and contaminate fields of non-G.M.O. crops..." GMO crops are typically bred to be ultra-hearty and therefore spread easily. We already have enough monoculture in US agribusiness and GMO contaminants make that problem even more widespread. What happens when we find out that some seemingly benign or beneficial modification is actually a weakness in certain unusual climatic conditions or, worse yet, is the root of a less well understood but widespread food sensitivity and 75% of a staple crop has that gene modification? And don't even get me started on Monsanto being able to crop dust with poison because their plant products are bread to be immune to it, or suing neighboring farmers whose crops are contaminated by Monsanto seed that they can't get rid of.
Diversity in agriculture needs to be carefully protected for the value it provides in a changing environmental landscape. And modifying rice to produce unnatural levels betacarotene and iron is not the answer to reducing dietary deficiency. The answer is actually figuring out how to regionally grow and feed people a diverse diet. And if we've reached the point where we have too many people on the planet to feed them all a proper human diet then we have bigger fish to fry.
ejzim 21620
Whether you or the chemical, and seed, companies think we are being silly and alarmist about GMOs, is beside the point. All ingestables (food, drink, medications, etc.) should be labelled as to what is, and is not, in them. We consumers have a right to choose what we put in our mouths. We have a right to choose our risks, where possible. I choose non-GMOs until I see the independent, scientific studies that prove them harmless over the Long Term.
Ram Atlanta
It is very premature (and laughable) to think that GMO safety is beyond debate. When Seralini and colleagues first published the long term carcinogenic effects of GMO-maize (Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31), the whole community jumped on it, as evidence doesn’t suit their needs, criticizing the ‘methodology’ and forced the journal to retract the paper despite the Editors conclusion that “there had been no fraud or misrepresentation”. Fortunately, Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper. Even if one has to assume that the actual nutritional/safety value of GMO crops are not different from those of organic (although in some cases GMO’s nutritional value appears to be inferior as shown in a recent analysis of Iowa Soya bean crops; Bohn et al Food Chem. 2014 Jun 15;153:207-15), GMO crops do contain significant amounts of glyphosate (Round up) and AMPA pesticides, whose long term effects are still unclear. At this time no one is campaigning for banning GMO! All they ask for is labeling (which is already in place in EU). I don’t think that is too much!
GiGi is a trusted commenter Montana
I do not oppose GMO plant science in principle. I will eat otherwise organic papayas if they become available. Golden rice and drought resistant maize are positive results of the technology.
What I object to is the paving of much of the Midwest with huge factory farms solely of RoundUp-ready corn and soybeans. Some of the corn is used for fuel and the rest and most of the beans become feed for animals who are fattened under deplorable conditions. The meat of such animals doesn't taste as good nor is as nutritious as traditionally raised animals. The use of so much glyphosate (RoundUp) can't be good for the workers who apply it year after year. Though persistence of glyphosate in the environment is supposed to be short, the half-life of the chemical can vary a lot, especially if frozen. Inconsiderate use of the herbicide has led to glyphosate-resistant weeds, so now companies are developing 2,4-D GMO versions of corn and soy. The chase goes on.
Our whole large-scale agricultural system is making us sick. I don't want to support our current agricultural mess, so I avoid GMO corn, soy and canola as much as possible. As a vegetarian, I eat lower on the food chain. I'm not suggesting everyone become a vegetarian, but more of us eating less but more healthful grass-fed meat would be a place to start. Instead of acres of corn, the Midwest could again grow vegetables, fruits and nuts the way it used to. This may even become necessary if the California drought persists.
JM Washington
There are two major problems with this statement. First of all, GM is a technique and not a product. Saying "GMOs are safe/dangerous" is the same as "painted products are safe/dangerous". I think we can agree there is a difference between a banana with edible paint and an atomic submarine covered with TBT-paint.
More importantly though, the choice for GMO-free can have very different reasons. I for one love the fact that insulin for diabetics is manufactured using GM bacteria, but I hate the devastating effects of Monsanto's glyphosate-resistent constructs. Pigweed turned resistent against glyphosate in about 10 years, glyphosate itself turns out to be carcinogenous, and for these specific constructs it's proven that they actually increased rather than decreased pesticide use.
Most importantly though, genetic modification is done at the gene level. Farming on the other hand is done in the context of an ecosystem. Right now the farming sciences focus too much on the gene level and not enough on the ecosystem level. The industrial GMO model of large monoculture fields with a single variety is proven to be devastating for the health of your soil.
So there's nothing wrong with GM. But quite some applications of the technique are bound to cause more problems than they solve. So the discussion shouldn't be about GM, but about how it's used.
Disclaimer: I'm a biologist and statistician at the faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium.
Paul Wallis Sydney, Australia
This article reads like the nth iteration of a 20 year old standard formula for GMO information which the GMO has been spreading for years. The theory here seems to be to convince people that "You don't know what it is, so it must be OK to eat it." Equating hybridization of plants with GMO is equally off the mark. It's not the same thing. The first GMO potatoes were put in a field, and promptly died. The current generation is full of the flour-like starches which taste terrible and are also used for paper manufacturing. As for desired outcomes - Desired by whom? By a company which spends more time in court than the Mafia and bullies subsistence farmers? By well-paid pet scientists? The GMO lobby seems to think mere insistence and sophistry are the key to persuading people to eat this highly debatable potential garbage. You want to recall a food after it's killed a few million people? Great. Nothing like corporate social sensitivity to really warm up a few mass graves. The issue is the long term effects of eating GMOs. There's even a rumor (unconfirmed) that some GMOs remain in the body because they can't be digested. It's theoretically possible, (paper can do that if ingested) but unconfirmed because apparently nobody in the clown academy can be bothered to test it. Meanwhile - For those who think GMO food is so great, you eat it.
Kevin New York
Ms. Brody , In your rush to defend GMO you conspicuously omit the number one concern many of us have; Modifying food with the properties of chemicals. Indeed, you neglected to mention that the major chemical companies of the world are now in the food business, assuring us that everything they are doing to our food is quite safe. Let's take a look at the track record of just one of these companies, Monsanto. They have brought us PCBs, agent orange, DDT, bovine growth hormone and agent orange to name a few. What in this list and their proven detrimental health consequences, gives you confidence in their claims that plants modified to withstand massive doses of glyphosates (now mixed with the properties of Agent orange) are perfectly safe for human consumption. You have a very public pulpit to discuss these issues. Unless your on the payroll of these companies, it would seem to me that you should at the very least try and cover all aspects of the debate. There are great concerns that in the effort to feed the world with GMO's we'll end up killing everyone (not unlike the asbestos disaster) with unforeseen health complications produce by these very same compounds
B Dawson, the Furry Herbalist Eastern Panhandle WV
So, those with concerns about GMO products are full of fear and have no facts while the author maintains the supporters of GMOs have all the unemotional facts. Hmmmm.
Ms. Brody writes in the opening paragraph: ..."Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat"... Decades ago this same argument was used against those who raised concerns about sub therapeutic levels of antibiotics in feedlot cattle. Now we have MERS, SARS, MERSA, Cdiff to name a few. Scientists swore that DDT was safe, Agent Orange, PCB's. There is a lengthy list of now banned chemicals that were supposed to make our lives more livable. Scientists can be wrong, especially modern day when far too much research is funded by the very interests who have a vested interest in the product. The tobacco industry is proof of that. How many years did they maintain that their product, backed up by research, was benign?
As to strawberries, nuts and other allergens they are required to be clearly labeled as such so that people can avoid them. No industry is protesting this. So why is there so much resistance to labeling a GMO product and allowing consumers to make a choice? Whether or not my choice falls in line with science or religion or fad is not the business of Monsanto or Cargill or the Government.
Label GMO products and let us make our own decisions.
citizen vox San Francisco
One of the first points made in Brody's article is that the GMO labeling movement conflates distrust of corporations and government with the evaluation of the GMO process. Yet many of the comments show an inablity to read and understand. They continue to distrust GMO products because they distrust the producers and regulators of our foods. GMO is a process that can result in good or bad products. GMO is to a food as cooking is to a dish; you can't blame the process of cooking for a tasteless dish. And an evil cook can still make a tasty dish; think of Mafia bosses in the kitchen.
No one could be more critical of corporate power and its influence over regulatory agencies than myself. So, I say, go out and fight Big Business. We live in an oilgarchy; don't tilt at the windmills of sicence without even basic knowledge of genetics.
If we are to regain our democracy, we need citizen who can see and think straight.
Jane Brody, good to see the point of GMO insulin in print. I've been saying for years that I prescribe GMO products every day to save diabetic lives. Who wants to return to grinding up pancreases to inject under their skin?
There is something fundamentally wrong with a public that can't think straight.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
On GMOs: "A pound of algebra is worth a ton of verbal commentary". I managed to fit the Precautionary Principle into a few lines. The GMO paid propagandists are pounding tons of verbalistic statements (even an incompetent smear campaign), but this simple summary should cancel about everything they are trying to say. In a single column. They need to refute my representation or show that f(breeding) has the same maximum as f(GMOs).
[NOTE: This is the Math version of a simple verbal argument made elsewhere, but cristallized formally here for rigor, not clarity or communication. Some who have argued that "this is complicated" (and lectured me on "being simple") is silly: go read the main article or find another site.]
By JANE E. BRODY
Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat, consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled “G.M.O.-free” in the not-too-distant future. As happened with the explosion of gluten-free products, food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether it is scientifically justified.
Responding to consumer concerns about genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s, in foods, as well as individual company and state actions on G.M.O. labeling, the Department of Agriculture last month announced a voluntary certification program that food companies would pay for to have their products labeled G.M.O.-free.
By the end of the month, Abbott, the maker of Similac Advance, began selling a G.M.O.-free version of the nation’s leading commercial baby formula (it already has such a product, sold as Similac Organic) to give consumers “peace of mind”.
In April, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced it would start preparing foods with no G.M.O.s, although the restaurant will not be free of such ingredients.
Last year, Vermont passed a law requiring the labeling of foods that contain G.M.O.s (Connecticut and Maine have labeling laws that will go into effect only when surrounding states also pass them). And Whole Foods Market, with 410 stores in 42 states, Canada and Britain, announced that it would require all foods they sell with G.M.O.s to be so labeled by 2018.
G.M.O. labeling is already required in 64 countries, including those of the European Union; Russia; Japan; China; Australia; Brazil; and a number of countries in Africa, where despite rampant food scarcity and malnutrition, American exports that could save millions of lives have been rejected because the crops contained G.M.O.s.
However, a review of the pros and cons of G.M.O.s strongly suggests that the issue reflects a poor public understanding of the science behind them, along with a rebellion against the dominance of food and agricultural conglomerates. The anti-G.M.O. movement, I’m afraid, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is needed is a dispassionate look at what G.M.O.s mean and their actual and potential good, not just a fear of harmful possibilities.
Let’s start with the facts. Humans have been genetically modifying food and feed plants and animals for millenniums, until recently only by repeatedly crossing existing ones with relatives that have more desirable characteristics. It can take many years, even decades, to achieve a commercially viable product this way because unwanted traits can come in the resulting hybrids. While it may be nice to have a tomato that can withstand long-distance travel, the fruit also has to ripen evenly and, most important, taste good.
Genetic engineering makes it possible to achieve a desired outcome in one generation. It introduces only a single known gene or small group of genes that dictate production of desired proteins into a plant, imparting characteristics such as tolerance of frost, drought or salt, or resistance to disease or weed killer. The technique can also be used to enhance a plant’s growth or content of an essential nutrient, or, in the case of animals, reduce the feed they need.
Thus, Golden Rice, genetically enhanced to be rich in beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, can counter blindness in rice-dependent populations; another gene inserted into rice increases its iron content to fight iron-deficiency anemia; a gene from ocean pout speeds the growth of farmed salmon, reducing its dependence on wild fish feed; and a bacterial gene inserted into the DNA of corn enables it to better withstand drought.
The often-voiced concern that introducing genes from different species is unnatural and potentially dangerous ignores the fact that all living organisms, including humans, share thousands, even millions of genes with other species (we share 84 percent of our genes with dogs!).
As for safety, every G.M.O. must be evaluated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency before it can be marketed. Developers must test the product for toxicity and allergenicity as well as assure that its nutrient content is at least as good as its non-G.M.O. counterpart.
Yes, this depends on the developer’s honesty, but note: There is no such testing required for traditionally bred foods, any number of which are known to cause life-threatening reactions in some people. Many popular non-G.M.O. foods, including broccoli, mushrooms and carrots, contain natural toxins, though the foods are not harmful to people when consumed in normal amounts. Kiwis, with hundreds of novel proteins, many of which have allergic potential, were never tested for allergenicity before they were marketed.
Peanuts, shellfish, celery and strawberries have not been banned despite some people being allergic to them. It may even be possible to use genetic engineering to get rid of the allergenic proteins in such foods.
Other actual and potential applications of the technique include using bacteria outfitted with the human insulin gene to produce insulin to treat diabetes; using a yeast with a gene for chymosin from the stomach lining of calves to churn out a vegetarian version of the enzyme needed to produce cheese; and employing various genetically modified organisms to produce vast quantities of vaccines, antibodies or drugs rapidly and inexpensively.
Safety testing of G.M.O.s often goes beyond their intended use. In an effort to enrich soybeans used for animal feed with the amino acid methionine, a gene from Brazil nuts was used. But when testing showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts produced antibodies to the protein in engineered soybeans, research on the modified beans was abandoned.
A legitimate safety concern involves possible delayed deleterious effects of genetically modified products on consumers, the environment or the “balance” of nature. As with an organism’s natural genes, introduced ones can mutate or disrupt the function of neighboring genes. Thus, continued monitoring of their effects is essential and, as with defective cars, malfunctioning products may have to be recalled.
Are there risks to G.M.O.s that scientists have yet to consider or discover? Of course there are. Nothing in this life is risk-free, but that is not enough reason to reject valuable scientific advances.
Another objection to G.M.O.s, however, could jeopardize the government’s ability to certify products as G.M.O.-free: G.M.O. seeds can sometimes escape where they’re grown and contaminate fields of non-G.M.O. crops, and scores of minor ingredients in food products, like cornstarch, may be derived from a G.M.O. crop. While there are no guarantees, the best way for concerned consumers to avoid G.M.O. products is to choose those certified as organic, which the U.S.D.A. requires to be G.M.O.-free.
h f
I am tired of this false argument that GMO's pose no harm, and are the same type of gene modification that is essential in evolution.
First, the harm GMO crops do are to the environment, by allowing normal crops to be blasted with pesticides, so that all other edge species are killed. The decline of Monarch butterflies, previously able to survive on edge growth of plants like Jimson Weed, now no longer have even that fragmentary landscape. The increase in mono-culture farming is also causing Monarch die-back, but that fact does not let round-up resistant crops off the hook.
Secondly, GMO crops harm the economy. The persecution of farmers, the concentration of wealth in the big pesticide companies (Monsanto) that dependence on these GM crops causes is WELL documented!!!
This is the opposite direction we want our agriculture to go in.
We want to preserve local seed varieties, we want to promote small-scale farming that does not require transport to the other side of the earth for sale, and we want to cultivate environmental health for our world around us.
You cannot compare the anti-GM-ers to the anti-VAXXers - the ill effects on the economy (concentration of wealth) and the environment (species die-off, loss of local seed stock) are documented and real.
This is all I am allowed to write, but I could go on.
W DeVore, Ohio
Ms. Brody, you're not answering the right question. The question is whether the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in the production of many genetically modified foods - corn, soy, sugar beets, etc. - is safe for human consumption. Monsanto of course says that it is safe. But can we trust the company that makes glyphosate to answer this question in an unbiased manner? Take a look at this question, if you dare, and I think you will find that the picture regarding gmo's is not so clear as you have represented it to be.
T.R. Morris, ND Seattle, WA
I don't really like the idea of penguin genes in frost resistant peaches, and I do have some concern that GMOs are more likely to cause food allergies and sensitivities. That's not my major concern though. I am a physician and am anti GMO for different reasons. GMO crops inherently lack the diversity needed to evolve and resist various infections--that will become more likely as global climate change progresses. This puts our entire food supply at risk. GMOs are being engineered to survive astounding levels of pesticides and herbicides--and many are being engineered by the same company that manufactures the #1 herbicide (Monsanto's Atrazine or Roundup). These pesticides are bad for us, the soil, the soil microbiome, wildlife, the water supply, and most importantly, the bees that the entire existence of any agriculture is entirely dependent upon. Monsanto shamelessly tried to get away with putting "terminator genes" into their crops so that farmers worldwide would be 100% dependent on buying fresh seed from the corporation every year--disrupting the venerated practice of saving seed from what was grown every year. That GMO companies have aggressively sued independent corn & soy farmers who were merely the victims of downwind GMO pollen from was an atrocious example of a corporate land grab by big agriculture. There might be a few nice features of GMO crops, but the risks FAR outweigh the benefits and the only reward is going to some seriously "bad apple" agribusiness giants.
Anna Brussels
Perhaps the jury is out as to whether G.M.O. foods are safe. But that is the least of my concerns. The patenting of life, the monopoly of the food supply by a corporation that thinks only of generating wealth for itself, the restrictions on farmers saving seeds, which they have done since the beginning of agriculture, harsh and unfair legal action that such corporations have taken against farmers, the destruction of crop and food diversity as monocrops are favored, and much more. This is all very wrong on an ethical level and poses a huge risk to our society and environment. Human health and safety is but one consideration. Why always focus on this and none of the other issues?
fact or friction? maryland
It's sad to see how big agribusiness has won the minds of nearly everyone in the media, who now parrot baseless claims that GMOs are proven safe and that there's no way to feed the planet without GMOs.
Ms. Brody is indistinguishable from spokespeople for big agribusiness. How about giving equal and intelligent, substantive consideration of the concerns regarding GMOs?
Let's start with the fact that genetic engineering is absolutely not the same as plant breeding. GMO crops are engineered by injecting genes from completely different species. The GMO crops resulting from genetic engineering could never result from plant breeding, even if you had thousands of years to try.
Most GMO crops are engineered by injecting genes from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis to produce an insecticide in the cells of the plant. This government-regulated insecticide is known as Bt toxin. When you eat foods made from GMO crops, you are eating this insecticide.
Most GMO crops are also engineered to be immune to weed killers like glyphosate (used in RoundUp), or 2,4-D (used in Agent Orange), so more can be applied to farm fields. These toxic chemicals end up in the the soil and water, the GMO crops you eat, and everyone's bodies.
The FDA, which is arguably under the control of big agribusiness and their lobbyists, has never required independent, long-term testing of GMOs. They have not truly been proven safe. That is why 64 other countries ban or require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
Vera Calabria Los Angeles
I am truly baffled that this article quotes science as a reason for safety. There are no long-term tests.
But there IS knowledge that most of the pesticides are carcinogenic, that they kill off the bees, that without the bees' pollination we really will have severe food shortages, etc., etc.
And how to honestly insist that eating a fish with growth-hormones will not affect my own hormone system or bones is simply astounding. And here too, there are no long-term tests.
Nicole San Francisco
You have completely failed to mention genetic modification that included inserting chemicals (namely Roundup and glyphosate) into our foods. This does become a problem and the people should have a right to know about this. You mention that thousands of people in other countries could benefit from GMO's grown here and sent three, however you did not mention that Monsanto (the company that sells foods to other countries only sells foods that are grown from terminator seeds. These only grow for one generation. Making a system that is completely dependent on that one company for all of their food needs with no ability to grow their own. It holds entire impoverished countries and communities hostage with out the ability to be self reliant. In further regard to GMO foods, and Monsanto in particular, even farmers in the US are held hostage to their company. When plants cross pollinate with other farms near by, any plant that is produced that has any trace of trademarked genes in them is owned by Monsanto and the farmer has to pay royalties on that.. even if they never purchased the seeds in the first place!
You mention in your article that the public is misinformed about the dangers of GMO's. I argue that you yourself are misinformed. Health problems are not the only problems that erupt from the use of GMOS.
Bill Ithaca, NY
As a scientist, I find the scientific illiteracy of Americans, on everything from GMO's to climate change, extremely disheartening. This ignorance is combined with an arrogance in which people who know nothing of science think they know more than scientists who've spent their careers studying these things.
Thanks for the clear article, Ms. Brody.
Kelly V Brooklyn, NY
I continue to be disappointed in the New York Times' reporting/defense of GMOs, including today's lead article in the Health section. I'm not a fan of fad diets or uneducated, diet-related claims either, but the issue of GMOs is extremely nuanced and should be treated as such. Many of us who are skeptical of GMOs, and believe in food labeling, are not only (or just) concerned about our personal health at the expense of the developing world's poor (despite the fact that the majority of GMO crops are not destined for human food, but rather for animal feed, textiles and biofuels and that GMOs have not increased productivity: data from the USA's Department of Agriculture shows that there has been no recorded increase in soy and corn yields since the introduction of GMOs). We are ALSO concerned about the environmental impact of GMOs (GMOs have lead to a net increase in pesticide use - meaning herbicides plus insecticides - of 404 million pounds, a 7 percent gain) and the threat they pose to farmers' sovereignty around the world. I'm all for continued discussion for and against GMOs, but let's do so with all of the issues on the table.
Jeff US
The problem may be less the genetic modification of the plant and more that the plant gets drenched with Round-Up during its growth. The amount of Round Up is probably increasing as noxious species develop immunity to it.
As to the "scientific community," one has to wonder (if not believe) that most extant studies have been commissioned by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra and frankly cannot be trusted.
Nota Demo Crat California
Most GMO crops are "Roundup Ready" types that can be sprayed with glyphosate weed killer and not be killed with the weeds. This has lead to millions of gallons more herbicide sprayed on our land, in the air and in our water. Explain why more toxins in our environment is a good thing and I will buy more GMO's.
JAE Kansas
Sixty-four countries already require GMO labeling. It seems to me that fact alone would give one pause. Are all of these other countries ruled by irrational fears and lacking in scientific expertise? Are other countries that heartless and lacking in reason that they make the choice to allow millions to die rather than accept American GMO foods? I don't think this article is nearly as balanced and reasonable as it is trying to appear.
TMBM Jamaica Plain
And there lies the problem, all the way down in the last paragraph. "G.M.O. seeds can sometimes escape when they're grown and contaminate fields of non-G.M.O. crops..." GMO crops are typically bred to be ultra-hearty and therefore spread easily. We already have enough monoculture in US agribusiness and GMO contaminants make that problem even more widespread. What happens when we find out that some seemingly benign or beneficial modification is actually a weakness in certain unusual climatic conditions or, worse yet, is the root of a less well understood but widespread food sensitivity and 75% of a staple crop has that gene modification? And don't even get me started on Monsanto being able to crop dust with poison because their plant products are bread to be immune to it, or suing neighboring farmers whose crops are contaminated by Monsanto seed that they can't get rid of.
Diversity in agriculture needs to be carefully protected for the value it provides in a changing environmental landscape. And modifying rice to produce unnatural levels betacarotene and iron is not the answer to reducing dietary deficiency. The answer is actually figuring out how to regionally grow and feed people a diverse diet. And if we've reached the point where we have too many people on the planet to feed them all a proper human diet then we have bigger fish to fry.
ejzim 21620
Whether you or the chemical, and seed, companies think we are being silly and alarmist about GMOs, is beside the point. All ingestables (food, drink, medications, etc.) should be labelled as to what is, and is not, in them. We consumers have a right to choose what we put in our mouths. We have a right to choose our risks, where possible. I choose non-GMOs until I see the independent, scientific studies that prove them harmless over the Long Term.
Ram Atlanta
It is very premature (and laughable) to think that GMO safety is beyond debate. When Seralini and colleagues first published the long term carcinogenic effects of GMO-maize (Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31), the whole community jumped on it, as evidence doesn’t suit their needs, criticizing the ‘methodology’ and forced the journal to retract the paper despite the Editors conclusion that “there had been no fraud or misrepresentation”. Fortunately, Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper. Even if one has to assume that the actual nutritional/safety value of GMO crops are not different from those of organic (although in some cases GMO’s nutritional value appears to be inferior as shown in a recent analysis of Iowa Soya bean crops; Bohn et al Food Chem. 2014 Jun 15;153:207-15), GMO crops do contain significant amounts of glyphosate (Round up) and AMPA pesticides, whose long term effects are still unclear. At this time no one is campaigning for banning GMO! All they ask for is labeling (which is already in place in EU). I don’t think that is too much!
GiGi is a trusted commenter Montana
I do not oppose GMO plant science in principle. I will eat otherwise organic papayas if they become available. Golden rice and drought resistant maize are positive results of the technology.
What I object to is the paving of much of the Midwest with huge factory farms solely of RoundUp-ready corn and soybeans. Some of the corn is used for fuel and the rest and most of the beans become feed for animals who are fattened under deplorable conditions. The meat of such animals doesn't taste as good nor is as nutritious as traditionally raised animals. The use of so much glyphosate (RoundUp) can't be good for the workers who apply it year after year. Though persistence of glyphosate in the environment is supposed to be short, the half-life of the chemical can vary a lot, especially if frozen. Inconsiderate use of the herbicide has led to glyphosate-resistant weeds, so now companies are developing 2,4-D GMO versions of corn and soy. The chase goes on.
Our whole large-scale agricultural system is making us sick. I don't want to support our current agricultural mess, so I avoid GMO corn, soy and canola as much as possible. As a vegetarian, I eat lower on the food chain. I'm not suggesting everyone become a vegetarian, but more of us eating less but more healthful grass-fed meat would be a place to start. Instead of acres of corn, the Midwest could again grow vegetables, fruits and nuts the way it used to. This may even become necessary if the California drought persists.
JM Washington
There are two major problems with this statement. First of all, GM is a technique and not a product. Saying "GMOs are safe/dangerous" is the same as "painted products are safe/dangerous". I think we can agree there is a difference between a banana with edible paint and an atomic submarine covered with TBT-paint.
More importantly though, the choice for GMO-free can have very different reasons. I for one love the fact that insulin for diabetics is manufactured using GM bacteria, but I hate the devastating effects of Monsanto's glyphosate-resistent constructs. Pigweed turned resistent against glyphosate in about 10 years, glyphosate itself turns out to be carcinogenous, and for these specific constructs it's proven that they actually increased rather than decreased pesticide use.
Most importantly though, genetic modification is done at the gene level. Farming on the other hand is done in the context of an ecosystem. Right now the farming sciences focus too much on the gene level and not enough on the ecosystem level. The industrial GMO model of large monoculture fields with a single variety is proven to be devastating for the health of your soil.
So there's nothing wrong with GM. But quite some applications of the technique are bound to cause more problems than they solve. So the discussion shouldn't be about GM, but about how it's used.
Disclaimer: I'm a biologist and statistician at the faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium.
Paul Wallis Sydney, Australia
This article reads like the nth iteration of a 20 year old standard formula for GMO information which the GMO has been spreading for years. The theory here seems to be to convince people that "You don't know what it is, so it must be OK to eat it." Equating hybridization of plants with GMO is equally off the mark. It's not the same thing. The first GMO potatoes were put in a field, and promptly died. The current generation is full of the flour-like starches which taste terrible and are also used for paper manufacturing. As for desired outcomes - Desired by whom? By a company which spends more time in court than the Mafia and bullies subsistence farmers? By well-paid pet scientists? The GMO lobby seems to think mere insistence and sophistry are the key to persuading people to eat this highly debatable potential garbage. You want to recall a food after it's killed a few million people? Great. Nothing like corporate social sensitivity to really warm up a few mass graves. The issue is the long term effects of eating GMOs. There's even a rumor (unconfirmed) that some GMOs remain in the body because they can't be digested. It's theoretically possible, (paper can do that if ingested) but unconfirmed because apparently nobody in the clown academy can be bothered to test it. Meanwhile - For those who think GMO food is so great, you eat it.
Kevin New York
Ms. Brody , In your rush to defend GMO you conspicuously omit the number one concern many of us have; Modifying food with the properties of chemicals. Indeed, you neglected to mention that the major chemical companies of the world are now in the food business, assuring us that everything they are doing to our food is quite safe. Let's take a look at the track record of just one of these companies, Monsanto. They have brought us PCBs, agent orange, DDT, bovine growth hormone and agent orange to name a few. What in this list and their proven detrimental health consequences, gives you confidence in their claims that plants modified to withstand massive doses of glyphosates (now mixed with the properties of Agent orange) are perfectly safe for human consumption. You have a very public pulpit to discuss these issues. Unless your on the payroll of these companies, it would seem to me that you should at the very least try and cover all aspects of the debate. There are great concerns that in the effort to feed the world with GMO's we'll end up killing everyone (not unlike the asbestos disaster) with unforeseen health complications produce by these very same compounds
B Dawson, the Furry Herbalist Eastern Panhandle WV
So, those with concerns about GMO products are full of fear and have no facts while the author maintains the supporters of GMOs have all the unemotional facts. Hmmmm.
Ms. Brody writes in the opening paragraph: ..."Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat"... Decades ago this same argument was used against those who raised concerns about sub therapeutic levels of antibiotics in feedlot cattle. Now we have MERS, SARS, MERSA, Cdiff to name a few. Scientists swore that DDT was safe, Agent Orange, PCB's. There is a lengthy list of now banned chemicals that were supposed to make our lives more livable. Scientists can be wrong, especially modern day when far too much research is funded by the very interests who have a vested interest in the product. The tobacco industry is proof of that. How many years did they maintain that their product, backed up by research, was benign?
As to strawberries, nuts and other allergens they are required to be clearly labeled as such so that people can avoid them. No industry is protesting this. So why is there so much resistance to labeling a GMO product and allowing consumers to make a choice? Whether or not my choice falls in line with science or religion or fad is not the business of Monsanto or Cargill or the Government.
Label GMO products and let us make our own decisions.
citizen vox San Francisco
One of the first points made in Brody's article is that the GMO labeling movement conflates distrust of corporations and government with the evaluation of the GMO process. Yet many of the comments show an inablity to read and understand. They continue to distrust GMO products because they distrust the producers and regulators of our foods. GMO is a process that can result in good or bad products. GMO is to a food as cooking is to a dish; you can't blame the process of cooking for a tasteless dish. And an evil cook can still make a tasty dish; think of Mafia bosses in the kitchen.
No one could be more critical of corporate power and its influence over regulatory agencies than myself. So, I say, go out and fight Big Business. We live in an oilgarchy; don't tilt at the windmills of sicence without even basic knowledge of genetics.
If we are to regain our democracy, we need citizen who can see and think straight.
Jane Brody, good to see the point of GMO insulin in print. I've been saying for years that I prescribe GMO products every day to save diabetic lives. Who wants to return to grinding up pancreases to inject under their skin?
There is something fundamentally wrong with a public that can't think straight.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
On GMOs: "A pound of algebra is worth a ton of verbal commentary". I managed to fit the Precautionary Principle into a few lines. The GMO paid propagandists are pounding tons of verbalistic statements (even an incompetent smear campaign), but this simple summary should cancel about everything they are trying to say. In a single column. They need to refute my representation or show that f(breeding) has the same maximum as f(GMOs).
[NOTE: This is the Math version of a simple verbal argument made elsewhere, but cristallized formally here for rigor, not clarity or communication. Some who have argued that "this is complicated" (and lectured me on "being simple") is silly: go read the main article or find another site.]
The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk
Extensive Review of Timely Issue, June 18, 2014By Paul
This is the most authoritative and comprehensive review of the subject I have found to date. It covers nearly every topic you could think of relating to GMOs, from a variety of perspectives, and from well qualified scientists. Most chapters are interesting and it is nice being able to read them in any order. This is a great collection of information that would be hard to find elsewhere without doing lots of research.
"The essays in this volume were written by more than fifty scientists and public policy experts, whose analyses of GMOs represent many disciplines and public interest perspectives. If we add to their voices the viewpoints of the references they cite, we have literally hundreds of commentaries that bear witness to the deceptions associated with the promoters of GMOs. The real and potentially adverse effects of GMOs have been understated or negated by government and corporations, neglected by the press, and ignored by many in the scientific community who accept uncritically a corporate-crafted message. A fair-minded and unbiased individual looking at all the evidence must reach the conclusion that there is a great deal we do not know and what we do know impels us to be both cautious and concerned, skeptical of an early manufactured consensus, and critical of a framing that fails to recognize the diversity of public objections to GMOS." - Excerpt
I was disappointed. It is what it is billed to be, December 7, 2014By gator41
This review is from: The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk (Hardcover)
I was disappointed. It is what it is billed to be, a collection of essays, basically. But there is no index and no way to search for what I specifically want to know: If cooked, do the modified dna or proteins denature to the extent that the damage is limited or eliminated? What if you consume meat or eggs that come from animals that were fed genetically modified feed materials? Are the unhealthy consequences of consuming that feed passed on?
Why don't the gmo antagonists answer those questions? Makes you wonder who pays their bills.
I would give this book a one star except that for someone who has not really been exposed to the alleged ill effects of genetic tampering, this might be worth perusing. Otherwise, in my opinion, it is overbilled. Just cut and paste.
And no, I do not work for Monsanto. I am a PO'ed consumer who distrusts equally the gmo advocates and the anti-gmo evangelists. It is time for them to come up with more and better organized data, and an effective way to get the word out.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu