The Friendly Bug blog
GARDEning with THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND the BUGLY!
(SCIENCE-BASED OPINIONS FROM A PUBLIC HORTICULTURE EDUCATOR)
With all kinds of buzz-words, health trends, and contradictory information out there- it is often very difficult to discern between what may or may not be good for you. It is often the individuals who have a higher education and socioeconomic status, who end up feeding into the fear and fallacies that are associated with food trends. Armed with a combination of moderate knowledge, the social standing to influence those around them, and the misinformation fed to them by marketing campaigns- these individuals have the capacity to impact the stigma surrounding foods: which are quickly being misunderstood and misrepresented through fear-based marketing with no scientific or logical basis. GMOs are NOT a debate. They are a technological tool. Period. GMOs are amongst the top of the list for the most-feared concepts on the planet. Who knew 3 simple letters could stir up so much controversy? Unique word play on technical vocabulary can easily trick consumers into associating certain concepts with negative connotations. The misunderstanding of this vocabulary leads to unfounded movements that distract from the potential of technologies that can have long-lasting and dramatic effects on crop yield, marketability, and even long-term health and well-being of humans, livestock, and pets. So let’s get into the vocabulary: What are GMOs? Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are organisms who have had a change in their genetic structure or composition in some way. Now this is a fairly large and vague term that can encompass many other concepts (such as: selective breeding, hybridization, natural selection, and genetic engineering). Genes (the framework for all life) are a variable and ever-changing complex. Every living thing has DNA, and all DNA has the capacity to change (through mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, hybridization, and selective breeding- among others). In some of these cases- we see these changes occurring naturally in the wild (due to environmental selection pressures). In other cases, we create these changes by selectively breeding plants or animals for desirable traits. Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. We can see evidence of this when we look at our domesticated animals, and especially when we look at our crops. By choosing plants that we prefer, saving their seeds, and continuing to select for the traits that we want- we have been genetically modifying crops since the dawn of agriculture. For the purposes of this conversation, I will focus on plant breeding (and not on animals). As we have bred, cross-bred, and selected desired characteristics in plants- we have also had advances in technology. We have become better at fine tuning this selective process, in order to have plants with more desirable traits, and less of the ‘other stuff’. We have been able to speed up the process, by back-crossing and cloning. We have been able to understand the physiology of these organisms in a far greater capacity than ever before. We have even developed technological tools to isolate and target specific genes, which minimizes a large amount of the trial and error associated with conventional breeding methods. As these technological tools have become better and more advanced, we have also developed methods to introduce genes from certain organisms into others, in order to get the benefits associated with those genes. This is done for many purposes. Enabling resistance to diseases and other pathogens, enabling traits to make plants hardier and better able to withstand undesirable climate or resource availability. We have also been able to add compounds that influence sugars, colors, flavors, and even nutritive compounds such as vitamins. This technological concept of introducing genes into a new plant using various tools is called Genetic Engineering. Many have taken to using this terminology interchangeably, resulting in some haziness in the understanding of the concepts themselves, and many have just been grasped by fear-based marketing strategies, labels, and articles from unscientific sources, leading them to strongly oppose a concept that they may not entirely understand. Others may fall on various points of the spectrum, ranging from a medium to minimal understanding of what the terminology means, and what the process entails. People are often hesitant to embrace change (whether it is a new technological tool or a new flavor of Doritos). When you say the word ‘GMO’, you get that classic visual of a mad scientist with a syringe in one hand and a tomato in the other. Seeing something like that is enough to push most consumers away from the concept of GMOs/GE crops. (If you are interested in learning more about how crops are Genetically Engineered, you can go to: https://gmoanswers.com/). Even though production of GE crops is a highly regulated process, with millions of dollars that go into the testing, safety, and suitability of these products- people are often uncomfortable with the prospect of eating something unfamiliar, with the fear that it could cause potential harm to themselves or their family. In other words, when you are introducing genes from a plant that we do not readily eat, into a plant that we have been eating for thousands of years- How can we be sure that these genes are safe for human consumption? Good question! The answer to this is not that simple. There is no way to guarantee the safety of any of this technology, with respect to every single consumer that will ever eat it. The same can be said for a wildtype, or selectively bred ear of corn, or a tomato. The purpose of the intense and thorough testing is to ensure whether or not certain products are any riskier than their conventionally produced counterparts. In most cases, the testing and regulatory requirements that Genetically Engineered crops undergo, are far more complex and rigorous than conventional products. This means that the standards that GE crops need to meet in order to make it to market, are far higher than produce that has not been Genetically Engineered for specific traits. It is equally as risky to eat a wild carrot (if not more-so) than a hypothetical* carrot with certain genes introduced for various purposes. (To learn more about the regulatory process for GMOs, read: https://gmoanswers.com/ask/how-are-gmo-foods-regulated) Don’t they cause CANCER!? With the concept of the exact factors that lead to the development of cancer, not yet fully understood- this is a difficult question to answer. We are learning every day about compounds that have shown to be carcinogenic in lab studies. This not only applies to things you ingest (whether it is a GE product, or organic lettuce from your hippie neighbor), but it also applies to environmental factors (such as sunlight and pollution), substances and objects that you might come across (such chemical residue or lead based paint), or even by being in proximity to anything that emits radiation (which is more things than you could begin to imagine). These lab studies rely mostly on non-human test subjects to gain an understanding of the potential risks of certain compounds. A famous study used by many anti-GMO advocates is the paper published by Seralini et al. on the development of tumors in lab rats that were fed Roundup tolerant maize. The paper claimed that GMOs resulted in an increased likelihood of cancerous tumors. Aside from the blaring ethical and scientific inconsistencies in this research, the scientific community largely dismisses the claims made in this publication- based on the lack of repeatability of these results. Science needs to be based on data that is consistent, and repeatable. Due to an overwhelming flood of criticism from the scientific community: the journal that published this research retracted it within one year. Yes, those images of rats were real. But it’s not quite what you think. This strain of lab rats (Sprague-Dawley) is one that is well known in the scientific community, to have a high baseline incidence of cancer. If you look at the data in the paper, you will find unexplainable inconsistencies in the findings. (To learn more about this study and the associated scientific and ethical flaws, visit: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/). Regardless of the fact that this paper (with its shocking images of lab rats with large tumors across their body) is not considered a viable scientific study- the concept and original messaging is continuing to make the rounds in GMO fear campaigns. What about Allergies? Another point of misunderstanding as well as fear that is associated with genetic manipulation of crop traits, is the introduction of a gene that may code for a protein which would cause an allergic reaction or heightened immune response in the consumer. With countless numbers of genes that code for countless proteins- there is a possibility of selecting a gene that codes for a known or unknown allergen. This can be a prospect of uneasiness for consumers- especially those who currently do have food or environmental allergies. Researchers that develop Genetically Engineered crops DO take this factor into account, and aim to minimize the possible unintended effects by selecting traits from organisms that do not have any known human allergens within them. You would be just as likely to have an unintended allergic reaction to conventionally bred produce, than you would with GE produce. Why do we need to do this, when we have perfectly good methods that have successfully produced crops for thousands of years? This question is comparable to asking questions like: if we have been relying on our immune system for thousands of years, why do we use vaccines or antibiotics. This is a newer scientific technology that has enabled several agricultural advances, in addition to mitigating the destruction of certain agricultural commodities that were at-risk (whether it was from pathogens, climate, etc.). An example of this case: the Rainbow Papaya. A genetically engineered Papaya variety that saved Hawaii’s Papaya industry, due to its resistance to a virus that had caused rapid and wide-spread destruction of Papaya crops throughout the islands. Just like vaccines were developed to minimize your risk of potentially life-threatening human pathogens, Genetic Engineering has allowed us a greater peace of mind when dealing with the pathogens that could impact our food and its availability. This technological tool can be utilized in several ways, and for countless purposes. In the case of the Rainbow Papaya, the mechanism was a similar concept to the Pathogen Derived Resistance that we use in our immunizations. By expressing genes similar to the Papaya Ringspot Virus, these transgenic Papaya’s were resistant to the deleterious effects of the virus, thereby saving the Papaya Industry in Hawaii! Then you get the individuals who are strong advocates of certain agricultural practices and production methods. Why can’t we just focus our energy and money on Organic production of our food crops? The answer: because production costs would skyrocket, food availability would plummet, and we would not have nearly enough food to feed our increasing global population, currently exceeding 7 BILLION people- forecasted to reach over 9 BILLION by 2050. (Disregarding the misconception of ‘ORGANIC’ produce being a safer and healthier production method- which is an entire article in itself) I will primarily focus on crop yield and food requirements for a rapidly growing human population. There is no ONE perfect solution to feeding the world, and no simple answer that will solve all of our food problems. The combination of agricultural production technologies (including GMO, Organic, Conventional, etc.) don’t stand a chance alone, due to changing climate and huge percentages of food waste being produced annually. We need to solve the food shortage concerns by using a multi-strategy approach that includes sustainable management and reduction of food waste. (To learn more, read some of these Q and A’s by scientists: https://gmoanswers.com/ask/growing-human-population-how-much-do-gmos-help-us-so-we-can-feed-our-world) What about product patents and Big Ag companies suing farmers? Patents have long been a concept in agricultural production, and if you ask any individual who has developed a crop variety, you will learn quite a bit about the amount of time and money that goes into the development, testing, and marketing of a product. Patents on fruit varieties, plant cultivars, etc. have been around since the Plant Patent Act (aiming to protect agricultural intellectual property) in the 1930s. Due to the investment into the development of a product, and the lengthy and costly process associated with it, farmers who develop these varieties- to protect themselves from losing out on their investment if someone else takes that material and decides to market it for themselves. The principal of GMO crops is similar, whereby, new Genetically Engineered crops that are successful and allowed to reach market are patented by the companies that produced them. The reasoning that much of what we hear about GMO patents is from large-scale seed production and agricultural biotechnology companies, is due to the costs associated with the regulatory processes surrounding GMOs. Oftentimes, these big-wig companies (such as Monsanto) are amongst the few who can afford the huge monetary investment required to create and test a new Genetically Engineered crop. Personal agricultural production preferences and philosophies aside, these big Ag companies are not in the business of ‘trapping’ farmers and suing them for accidental drift of seed from GMO planted sites. This is a mis-representation. Kelly Clauss, Global Communications Strategy Lead at Monsanto clarifies the source of the misunderstanding: “The misperception that Monsanto would sue a farmer if GM seed was accidentally in their field likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto’s technology in his fields was accidental – even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme court, concluded his claims were false.” If you are personally not a fan of large-scale operations, that is your choice. And there certainly is room for a variety of production practices and methodologies to coexist. Brandon Honeycutt, a Nebraska based farmer, states: “One of the great things about farming is our ability to grow many different crops, while at the same time having the choices to raise them in different fashions, with or without biotech in the crops…” Although there are always challenges associated with each production method, there is no reason why you should not be able to utilize what works best for you, in your own agricultural endeavors. The more tools that become available to assist farmers in raising efficiency, yield, and marketability (whether it is organic, conventional, or biotechnology-based) the greater the likelihood of their operation’s success. But aren’t GMO’s bad for the environment? Another good question. And again, the answer to this is: NOPE. On the contrary, studies evaluating the changes in farming practices with the adoption of GMO technology has resulted in a significant decrease in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (due to several factors, including the reduced need to operate farm machinery and crop spraying equipment). Since 2006, this technological adaptation has been equivalent to removing the equivalent emissions of over 500,000 cars. The rigorous evaluation and testing of GMO products (before they are allowed on market) includes ensuring that health and safety guidelines are met. This testing includes a mandatory review by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). GE crops have led to a reduction in pesticide use, and more importantly: a reduction in the use of more potent and harmful chemicals, previously needed to control pest problems. (To read more about the environmental impacts, visit: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/) OK…but I still have a right to know what is in my food. Why can’t we make companies label GMOs, so people can choose for themselves? Cathy Enright, Executive Director of the Council for Biotechnology Information, states: “when it comes to safeguarding your health and nutrition, we support the mandatory labeling of food, including GMO food, if it raises a safety or health concern, for example, to alert sensitive populations to the potential presence of an allergen. We also support mandatory labeling of GMO food if there is a change to the food’s composition, nutritional profile, taste or smell, or any other characteristic that would make it different from its conventional counterpart.” According to the FDA, the purpose of labeling foods is to convey information about the safety and nutritional composition of a product. So if these components are consistent between GMOs and other production methods, labeling would be a waste of resources, and a potential strategy for misleading the public. National Geographic writer Georgina Gustin wrote: “The FDA considers genetically engineered ingredients to be “substantially equivalent” to those produced by conventional growing methods. This means it has not, and does not, require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to bear a label. But plenty of companies make “non-GMO” or “GE-free” claims. These terms are not specifically regulated by the FDA. Keep in mind, though, that only a handful of produce items currently in the food supply are genetically engineered—a few types of squash and papaya, among them. (So if you see a “Non-GMO” label on a bunch of broccoli, you’re being misled. There is no GMO broccoli on the market.)” Currently there are only 10 GMOs on the market: Soybean, Corn (field and sweet), Papaya, Canola, Sugar Beet, Summer Squash, Cotton, Alfalfa, and the recent addition of Apples and Potatoes. That means that anything outside of these products does not have a Genetically Engineered counterpart available to purchase. Read the rest of the article here: http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/11/an-eaters-guide-to-demystifying-food-labels/ (To read more from Cathy Enright: https://gmoanswers.com/ask/why-are-gmo-companies-against-labeling-gmo-foods-submitted-part-gmo-answers-top-consumer). If GMOs are so good, then why is there so much controversy surrounding them? The fact that you are reading this article, and the fact that everywhere you go- you get unsolicited advice regarding what is and is not good for you, is among many reasons why we are still arguing about this today. Although 88% of scientists agree on the safety of Genetically Engineered crops, only 37% of the public share these views. The differences in the acceptance of GMO products between scientists and the general public (a gap of over 50 points) is amongst the widest margins of any controversial or regularly debated topic out there. Throw in some companies and campaigns with varying motives behind vocalizing their support for one side or the other- you do end up in a confounding situation. When all kinds of information is coming from so many different sources- how on earth are you supposed to discern what is and isn’t accurate? Regardless of your preferences for food sourcing and agricultural production methods, GMOs are still a tool. GMO technology is not forcing you to choose certain production methodology over others, however- the concept is tossed into several debates that surround social issues such as ‘Big Ag’, ‘Organic production’, and ‘Pesticides/Chemicals’. None of these issues have anything to do with GMOs per se, however, for many, the concept has been difficult to detangle from the rest, only adding to the confusion. Though there is no surefire way to guarantee anything 100%, the scientific process is the closest thing that we have for getting unbiased and peer reviewed data, with consistency and repeatability. Lucky for us, there is a scientific consensus on this matter: Scientists all over the world agree that GMOs are safe, innovative, and have a very high potential (in terms of nutritional properties, environmental impact, waste reduction, and food availability / access). If you are interested in learning more, I strongly urge you to look into the science behind GMOs yourself! Just be aware of the sources from where you get your information.
I also recommend you watch Food Evolution: https://www.foodevolutionmovie.com/)
2 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
🐝 Abi SAEED 🐝Entomologist, Pollinator Specialist, Public Science Educator, and Archives
July 2017
Categories
|