Kaplifestyle

A Lifestyle and Fitness site by Gabe Kapler

You are here: Home / Health / Genetically Modified Organisms

Genetically Modified Organisms

By 33 Comments

“There is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs.”

My 15 year old son, Chase, made that statement. He’s a critical thinker and generally doesn’t make declarations without his opinion being well thought out and often adequately researched.

Exploring the debate surrounding genetically modified crops isn’t designed to cause friction, although it will inevitably do so. Rather than letting our initial reactions win out, let’s talk this through, challenge our assumptions and see where we come out on the topic. We’ll avoid, for now, the discussion about specific companies and their practices and instead focus on the theory.

A GMO is a plant or animal that has been genetically altered by scientists to improve its ability to grow in non-native environments, resist pests, tolerate extreme weather conditions, produce more food (like milk in cows), or show other desired traits. In other words, a GMO is a new version of a food plant or animal created by scientists through genetic engineering (GE) techniques.

Oooohh, scary. Transparently, the idea of food altered by scientists freaks me out. The fact that the idea alone makes my skin crawl is enough for me to be bold and perform some research. It would be simple to shut down from the discomfort and just spit venom about the evilness of the approach. You don’t have to search long online to encounter folks doing exactly that. The same article continues on:

Many consumers are wary of eating genetically engineered products and are concerned that genetically engineered foods are a step in the wrong direction. Basic laws of nature prevent plants from breeding with fish or bacteria, so we have little experience or history with these kinds of combinations. The process of creating GMOs is highly unpredictable and untested; it’s assumed that if the original food was safe, the genetically modified version will be too. As a result, new allergens may be introduced into common foods, and long-term effects of eating GMOs remain unclear.

But that isn’t really how we approach subjects on this blog. Although these points are delivered very forcefully, they’re simply assertions. We long to take a deeper dive into the science and the facts.

Whenever we engage in debate around here, we bring in our superstar editor and my partner at Kaplifestyle, Stephanie. She’s never one to delicately tip-toe around a topic, and she knows her way around a good philosophy discussion. I asked her to weigh in.

Steph, I’m writing a post on GMOs. I’m anxious to hear your thoughts

As per usual, I got a quick reply:

Oooh, that will be a fun one. Sure, I’ll pull together my opinions, though the gist is that we’ve been genetically modifying foods for the entirety of our history (see the entire cabbage family), and no one complains until there’s a microscope involved. Fear and paranoia about science isn’t smart or sensible.

Steph, judge? Nahhhh. She had more.

We have engaged in “genetic engineering” since the domestication of wheat, the key element in allowing civilization to spring up. This happened, as we currently understand it, around 12,000 BC. Any sort of artificial selection or breeding is, at its core, genetic engineering – we are actively altering the genes of the food we eat. The perception that there is some sort of “natural” way to eat is completely off base.

Steph is convincing, but I’m not sure I buy that last line. This really boils down to the word, “natural.”

Google gave me this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. “carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria”

If we can agree on that definition, then a natural way to eat would be by sourcing foods not made by man. To Steph’s point, this would include cabbage. My brain goes directly to wild game. Although clearly human beings have impacted where and how these animals live, they are as close to natural as exists.

I am one of those humans who eats and loves animals. I’ve also evangelically promoted the idea that eating those animals and food (in general) in its most natural form is optimal for health and well being. Sure, the jury is out on the nutritional density of a wild boar over a humanely raised and slaughtered free roaming pig, but it’s fairly indisputable that the former is closer to natural than the latter.

A similar comparison could be made when examining genetically modified corn versus the variety found in a Iowa family’s backyard. The nutritional profile may be equivalent, depending on a wide variety of variables on both sides. Whenever we have an opportunity to lean on scientific evidence, it’s prudent to do so. Steph continued:

Genetically engineered crops have been heavily studied over the last 30 years. A consensus review of the last 10 years of study has concluded that there is no measureable harm to human consumption. The AAAS, AMA, NAS, and RSM all agree – no adverse human health effects have been reported or substantiated. In short, literally all available evidence is that these are safe. This makes sense – there’s no conceptual reason that genetic engineering is going to be bad for us. Otherwise, we’d have to screen every bit of DNA that we ate to ensure that there were no potential mutations (and, note – there are mutations in every strand of DNA).

That’s not to say we should discount subjective material or gut feelings. No matter what, we must remember that scientific experiments are constantly evolving. What we know to be true now may not be so as we develop more advanced ways to test.

As it relates to GMOs, staying open minded, nimble and inquisitive is the move for now.

Strong mind,

Kap

  • Cal Crawford

    This is a good list of GMO facts/fiction/myths to consider: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4454

  • Jill

    One point that may have been overlooked is that there is an inherent difference between breeding crops to create new varieties vs. altering the DNA of a crop to inccoperate a pesticide into the genetic make up. It is the latter that makes my skin crawl…

    • Curtis Ippolito

      Boom. Nailed it. We wouldn’t have many modern vegetables without cross-breeding (which you can do at home, btw).

    • JosephLS

      “there is an inherent difference between breeding crops to create new varieties vs. altering the DNA of a crop”

      What is that difference? Because the whole purpose of selectively breeding crops is to alter their DNA.

  • Curtis Ippolito

    Yeah, I can’t get on board with Steph on this one. Who funded those studies that found GMOs present no adverse health effects? By engineering food crops to “resist pests,” as just one example, that means making these crops (corn and soy, mostly) Roundup ready. Meaning Roundup can be sprayed on the fields to kill weeds but not the crop. (Also see the decline of Monarch butterflies as collateral damage of killing it’s main food source, butterfly weed.) Look up the side effects associated with Roundup ingredients, specifically glyphosate. That also means that those crops are produced with insecticide in the seed to work systemically. I thought we were against the use of pesticides and herbicides on our produce around here. Farmers were told less herbicide would be needed with GMOs when they were introduced, but the exact opposite has been proven: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

    It’s not the “science” of GMOs I fear. It the collateral damage.

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Thanks for stopping by, Curtis.

      The studies have been funded by groups with a wide variety of interests, and the survey accounted for and corrected for bias. It would be a pretty difficult task to argue that there’s a conspiracy spanning companies, government and NGO groups, scientists, and numerous countries.

      With respect to the rest of your comment - the debate about what Monsanto is doing specifically is far beyond the scope of this introductory article and is a complicated question. I don’t support their efforts, but to tar the entire science because of one profit minded company is not acceptable to me.

      • lien

        i would love to know more specific information about the name of the groups and studies involving the safety of GMO food … i support science that benefits human health and condition that doesn’t hurt the environment and i agree with ‘to tar the entire science because of one profit minded company is not acceptable’ but i can not help thinking that most if not all the current debates concerning how GMO crops currently affect human health are related to Monsanto’s products which are most widely used in the market such as corn, soy … we need to distinguish between the normal cross-bred GMO food and Monsanto’s GMO food because they are not the same, imho … i wish everybody had watched the documentary ‘The Future of Food’ and i love to hear your opinion about it

    • JosephLS

      “It’s not the “science” of GMOs I fear. It the collateral damage.”

      This comment is akin to being against metalworks because metal is used to make bombs and guns. “It’s not working with metal I fear, it’s the collateral damage.”

      Genetically modifying organisms is a tool, just like building things with metal is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. It can be used for the purpose of improving lives, or it can be used for profit. To argue that genetic modification is bad, you have to argue that human nature will always lead to irresponsible use, an argument which I suspect would extrapolate to living in caves and abandoning civilization.

      The stakes of the false equivalence of genetic modification and Monsanto are very high. If we discard all use of GMO’s because people can’t distinguish between responsible and irresponsible use, then the huge potential benefits will all be lost. These benefits are substantial - think addressing world hunger.

  • ilovetruth

    Stephie whiffed on this one. Anyone who doesn’t appreciate the HUGE difference between selective breeding and GE shouldn’t be allowed into the discussion.

    Shooting non-biological components into the DNA of biological entities creates FRANKENFOOD. There is no way to predict how or when the new components will trigger new responses by the plant, or which humans will react to them.

    Too much risk. Not enough known. Certainly not enough to consider them “safe”.

    And the HUGE amount of anecdotal reporting of dysfunctional responses to GMOs cannot be ignored, at least not for MY children. I don’t know how you want to treat your involuntary test subjects.

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Non-biological components?

    • JosephLS

      “Shooting non-biological components into the DNA of biological entities creates FRANKENFOOD”

      None of the words in that sentence have any meaning. It’s pure rhetoric.

      • LimoJake

        If you’re shutting people who disagree with you out of the discussion, perhaps your username shouldn’t be “ilovetruth”

  • Jack

    My gut instinct is the same as yours Kap. Overall I’m inclined to believe that foods in their most natural / original form are optimal for health and wellbeing. With regard to human intervention, I think it’s important to differentiate between selective breeding (which has happened forever and occurs both with and without human involvement) and genetic modification (which involves direct DNA manipulation and has only been around since the 1970s).

    When selective breeding and mutation occurs in nature, the things that don’t naturally work out either don’t survive or are rendered sterile - which I think is nature’s way of maintaining balance and keeping the rate of change in check. Some crossbreed animal hybrids and things like navel oranges are good examples.

    The problem with modern genetic modification is that rapidly advancing technology has allowed humans to modify DNA with increasing “precision”, and ultimately the motive is generally profit / market control. People don’t spend time and money on modifying corn because of some philanthropic desire for humankind to obtain a superior food source - they do it so their specific crop grows faster and bigger, is more resistant to weather and pests, and thereby eliminates the competition.

    It’ll definitely be interesting to see more studies in the years to come!

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Thank you for your thoughts, Jack.

      Generally, I see the increased precision as a good thing. Selective breeding is a blunt instrument, and plenty of unknown and unwanted consequences occur. Sometimes these are innocuous, other times they are harmful. Modifying the gene with more precision (and again, the fact that you’re doing it directly as opposed through sexual reproduction is irrelevant) means two things. One, you have a greater amount of control over what the outcome is. Two, there is incredibly rigorous testing on that outcome and for any unwanted side effects.

      • Jack

        I agree that unknown and unwanted (anthropocentrically speaking) consequences can occur from selective breeding, but the “realm of possibility” is still determined by nature. Transgenesis, on the other hand, involves humans directly replacing DNA components in one type of organism with the DNA of other (often completely unrelated) organisms. In this case, I don’t agree that doing this rather than through sexual reproduction is irrelevant - because that kind of outcome would never have occurred through sexual reproduction at all. Think bacterial DNA being inserted into the DNA of a plant.

        There is obviously a lot of testing involved in all genetic modification processes, but regulations on GMOs are both globally inconsistent and not free from lobby money influence. We’d have to trust that these officials are (a) scientifically on par with the massive corporations / researchers and capable of giving adequate assessments of GMO products meant for mass consumption, and (b) morally sound in terms of not allowing their decisions to be swayed by monetary contributions.

        Since humankind is only a piece of the puzzle, I also wonder how much these companies and scientists really know about the impact of their work on the entire global ecosystem. Wherever possible I think I’ll opt for non-GMO products - if not for any measurable health difference, then just to err on the side of caution.

        • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

          Jack,

          I can’t agree with your first paragraph. The example that everyone keeps going back to - Monsanto engineering glyphosate resistant plants - is particularly interesting, because weeds are evolving (without human intervention) to be resistant to glyphosate as well. That realm of possibility isn’t really bounding it very much. In other words - that outcome is, in fact, occurring through sexual reproduction.

  • Ron

    If anyone believes that genetic modification to make plants tolerate the Roundup herbicide is “benign”, I beg you to watch this video. It’s 40 minutes, but it is hard science, and it presents all of the risks in a very thorough way: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiU3Ndi6itk&fb_action_ids=10152916885914177&fb_action_types=og.shares

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Thanks for sharing, Ron. I don’t think anyone is making that argument.

      • Ron

        Thank you Stephanie, but I respectfully disagree- actually everyone is making this argument, but they may not realize it. ilovetruth above nails it. Selective breeding is totally fine, natural and has been done for thousands of years- I don’t think anyone is arguing that cross-breeding apple varieties is bad.

        The only real GMO controversy in 2015 is whether it’s ok to modify genes to make plants tolerate glyphosate/Roundup. The evidence is mounting and convincing (to me and a growing movement of concerned people) that Roundup-ready crops (including nearly 100% of the corn grown in North America!!) are unbelievably dangerous to human health- both on the farm and on our dinner plates. The video I shared methodically explains why.

        How we got to this point and the Monsanto connection are certainly beyond the scope of Kaplifestyle- we agree. But as a health and lifestyle blog, the question of whether glyphosate-tolerant GMO crops are safe, is perhaps more important to consider than almost anything else you and Gabe have posted about. It affects virtually all of us, unless we’re lucky enough to be able to eat organic 100% of the time.

        Please keep up the great work. I’ve been an avid reader of this blog every day since the beginning!

        Ron

  • Chester

    Used to grow corn as a kid. We are not eating our grandparents’ wheat and corn.

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Very true, Chester.

  • bill

    I’m with Stephanie on this one. First, keep an open mind. There could be some negative consequences, but none that I am aware of at this point. Knowing that a common marketing ploy would maintain the great benefits of a non-GMO food, is preying of fear of simply not understanding what GMO really is. From what I’ve read, pretty much EVERYTHING we grow, both plant and animal has been genetically engineered in some fashion. Don’t forget, ALL dogs came from wolves…we pretty much did the rest. Same goes for corn, wheat, apples, roses, and of course people! We enjoy the many benefits every day. We’re just getting a lot better at it.

    • Jack

      Respectfully disagree with you Bill. Selective breeding is not the same as genetic engineering. Cross pollinating two kinds of corn to see if the result might yield the best features of each parent plant is not the same as directly altering the genetic code of corn to remove or replace “defective” and “inefficient” parts.

      Dogs were slowly domesticated and then bred into specific pedigrees over lengthy periods of time (we’re talking tens of thousands of years), and there’s also a massive list of congenital problems that come with “pure” breeds - hardly surprising given the human-made limitations in their gene pool diversity.

      None of us really know exactly what is modified in a GMO, and I’m sure it differs greatly between species - but I’m not really prepared to optimistically believe all genetic modification is benign in both intent and outcome. What we do know, on the other hand, is that things free of genetic modification are more biologically “stable” in the sense that they’re of nature’s own allowance.

      At this current point in time, human technology overall is advancing at such an exponential rate that even a single mistake can have vast ramifications. In the early 1920s, GM added a compound called tetraethyl lead to gasoline because they discovered it could eliminate a problem back then called engine “knocking”. Soon it was discovered that the lead component leaks out into the environment, where its toxicity accumulates in air and soil. Later that same decade, GM invented Freon as a “chemically inert” refrigeration fluid to replace previous volatile substances like ammonia. A few decades later, scientists realized that Freon depletes the ozone layer and that significant atmospheric damage had already been done. Damage on a planetary level, from a man-made substance genuinely believed to be safe.

      • bill

        Now Jack, don’t try bringing things like ‘facts’ and ‘science’ into the discussion! I’ll quickly retreat to my original thought of keeping an open mind. I guess my overall feeling is that while there are negative consequences such as you’ve pointed out, I would submit there have been many positive ones too. The one thing we know for sure is that we don’t know everything, and should keep seeking answers, but in a responsible manner. I will forever maintain though, that the first time I mixed peanut butter with jelly, I achieved positive results!

      • JosephLS

        “but I’m not really prepared to optimistically believe all genetic modification is benign in both intent and outcome”

        Absolutely, but I think what’s really happening is that people are asserting the opposite. The “pro” GMO side is the measured side. That is side that is recommending the scientific approach, that being withholding conclusions until we know the facts.

        The “anti” GMO side is the side using words like “Frankenfood.” That serves no purpose except to scare people. They are the ones asking if GMO’s are harmful, not realizing that is a nonsense question.

        I too recommend assessing each genetic modification for safety and environmental consequences, but the fact I am willing to accept them at all puts me squarely outside the anti-GMO camp.

  • Josh

    Commercial farms spray ammonia hydrous before planting that kills all micronutrients but creates a nitrogen rich environment that GMO corn rapidly uptakes. It is the same the military uses to create landing fields for planes in rural areas - it turns the ground very hard. You cannot eat this corn with processing, and most is used for fuel and animal feed. You cannot plant organic plant matter/vegetables in this kind of environment they will not survive. I don’t think cross hybrids and GMOs are even in the same ballpark. Cross hybrid is like mating a European with an Asian. GMO is like Wolverine.

    • Josh

      without processing*

  • JosephLS

    Also, people should know that the question “Are GMO’s harmful?” is meaningless. It’s like asking “Are animals smart?” Which ones?

    Genetic modification can produce virtually limitless outcomes. Remember, every organism that has ever existed is the product of a collection genetic mutations over time. If genetic modification was categorically bad, then all life is bad. We weren’t dropped onto the planet with our DNA exactly as it is.

    As such there is no such thing as “natural” and “unnatural” DNA. An observer could never tell the difference between the two, without prior knowledge of what the starting organism was.

    Therefore, any discussion of “harmful” GMO’s will only apply to the very specific modification in question. Are there harmful GMO’s? I’m sure there are. But then again, there are harmful “non-GMO” organisms too. In fact, most “natural” organisms, if consumed will either do nothing for us or hurt us.

    Of course we should be aware of what we are eating, and everything we consume - natural foods, GMO’s, drugs, supplements, homeopathics - should be investigated so that we know exactly how they affect our bodies. However, let’s not paint with broad strokes and dismiss the things that have the potential to help a huge number of people.

    • http://kaplifestyle.com/ Stephanie St Amour

      Nice job, Joseph.

  • http://ericmacknight.com/myp9a ericmacknight

    I’m not qualified to judge the science of GMOs. But the politics and economics of GMOs stink. Everything owned and controlled by big corporations, everything aimed at the industrial farming system that is so horribly broken; farmers being sued by Monsanto because GMO seeds drift into their fields. That’s enough for me to be an opponent.

    • lien

      i agree

  • Tom Barrett

    I think trust in whomever is commenting is required. How do we develop that trust? Preferably by continually evaluating that person’s responses and citations. What I find lacking in this discussion is citations of the research being quoted and the good reputations of the researchers. Historical perspective : the reputations of those charged with verifiable research results regarding GMOs. Unfortunately, these folks were also the same people who told us for decades that trans fats were good for us - now proven to be untrue - and that saturated fats were bad for us - now also proven to be untrue. Why would any of us trust these government agencies when their track record is atrocious, at best?

  • Monte Miller

    I have personal genetically modified organisms. Let me give you the skinny. The genes that the scientists use to put into a new organism have useful purposes. However, these genes are not working in their natural habitat nor in their natural ways. Some are designed so that far more poisons can be sprayed on the crops, and then a new problem becomes the poison. While some of these modifications may be useful, like any technology, it can be used for bad purposes. The companies that generally do this type of work are creating crops that increase their profits with little or no regards for health. I know of no useful GMO product that benefits our health in any way. While many of the changes themselves do no harm, there are other consequences to consider, none of them beneficial to me.