I have an opinion about genetically modified organisms - GMOs. I have read other diaries about GMOs, so I know that many of you will disagree with me, others will agree, and very few of you will be neutral.
Monsanto seems to be the public face of GMOs. They own patents and are making lots of money from them. They have almost certainly been complicit in many problems with poor farmers in India and with other problems around the world. So are GMOs good or evil? And is Monsanto’s involvement in making money from them evidence of good or evil?
Full disclosure here – I do not work for Monsanto, and as far as I know, I have no vested interest in their financial health one way or the other. Nor of any other GMO-influenced corporation or agency.
In California where I live, there was a ballot initiative in 2012 to require labeling for GMOs. I looked for evidence that would mandate labeling of GMOs. I couldn’t find any. I read accounts by scientists who touted the history of human-initiated genetic modification (which goes back a few thousand years), and the potential benefits to humankind of GM food. I came to believe that the fears that opponents are stirring about “frankenfoods” are without any scientific basis. They are all based on “what if” scenarios that argue against anything unknown and often reflect a basic misunderstanding of science. I rejected those non-scientific arguments. I voted “no” to labeling GMOs.
Here are a few observations:
1. We have been eating genetically modified foods for thousands of years. Potatoes, corn, tomatoes, virtually every food crop we grow have been hybridized and genetically selected to promote favorable features and avoid unfavorable ones.
2. The genetic makeup of our bodies is not affected by the genetic makeup of the food we eat. It is based on the genetic makeup of our parents. This defines one of the fundamental differences between reproduction and digestion. There are others. Ask your parents.
3. The genetic makeup of all living things on earth is so similar as to be nearly indistinguishable. Fish and tomatoes share more than 70 percent of the same genetic structure.
4. GM is a naturally occurring process. Mutant genes with favorable characteristics are naturally selected to make species more survivable, and in extreme cases to evolve new species. Lots of examples in the recent past. Basic Darwin.
5. The Haber-Bosch nitrogen-fixation process that was developed in Germany between 1910 and 1913, and which forms the basis for chemical fertilizer technology, has enabled production of food products that have provided nutrition for billions of people around the world, and is as far from a naturally occurring process as one could imagine. And was violently opposed (and still is) by proponents of “natural” foods. While steer manure still serves as decent fertilizer, without chemical fertilizers, there wouldn’t be nearly enough food to feed the planet. Scientific advances really do help humankind, even though they can be abused and overutilized.
Of course, facts rarely sway anyone when the argument is emotionally charged, and I doubt that my opinion will change yours if you disagree. The term “mutant” has been linked with “evil” for so long in our comic-book culture as to be indistinguishable. But I can’t listen to emotional, non-scientific arguments that endanger advances in human food production, or any scientific advancement for that matter. I need facts. Will GMOs endanger human health? From every scientific study I have been able to find, the answer is clearly NO.
A few weeks ago, I came across several articles by Steven Novella about GMOs and pseudoscientific claims here, here and here. He pointed out that
we've been doing this for decades now, and there have been tons of studies looking at the results of genetic modification, and we're not producing these scary monsters—this so-called Frankenfood. It just hasn't happened.
And he referenced many excellent summary articles.
But what about labeling – how could anyone possibly oppose full disclosure and greater knowledge?
Because the distinction is a false one, and only serves to politicize our food choices. GM food is nutritionally indistinguishable from non-GM food. As I indicated above, virtually every food item we eat was genetically modified many generations ago, so every food we eat would qualify for that label. So distinguishing between food that has been genetically modified by Monsanto from food that was genetically modified by a farmer in Mesopotamia is a political distinction, not a scientific one.
So if you have scientific evidence that GMOs cause human health problems, please let me know. Otherwise, please conform to accepted scientific standards and keep emotional arguments out of the way.
Update:
First my sincere apologies to anyone who was offended by my simplistic arguments and “facts”. My attempt to be cute came across as condescending. It was certainly not my intention to insult anyone’s intelligence – indeed, I presume my audience is intelligent, especially here at DK, otherwise why bother. I expected some controversy, but am overwhelmed by the intensity of the responses.
Thanks to everyone who provided additional facts either to refute or support my premise. I am not a geneticist, so my understanding of genetics is based on general science principles, and I defer to anyone who has a better understanding of genetics than I do.
Perhaps the best article was provided by mem from somerville discussing the impact of the Vermont GMO label law. The article emphasizes many of the points I was trying to make. Why is labeling not a good idea? Because the issue is far more complex than a simple label can convey, and will inevitably be misleading. Because genetic modifications have been showing up in DNA since the first single-celled eukaryotes appeared billions of years ago. Genetic changes are caused by radiation, ingested chemicals, and many other natural factors, in addition to intentional genetic engineering. Once a gene is changed, the organism is different from its prior state, and since the change is usually random, the cause of its modification is transparent. This is a natural process, and according to Darwin, it will either result in favorable, benign, or unfavorable characteristics that will propagate into future generations. Farmers have relied on this process to enhance crop yields by selecting naturally improved plants as seedlings, and later by intentionally cross-breeding favorable characteristics into their crops. And yes, this results in genetic modifications that create new organisms. So labeling foods as GMO is a far more complex and subtle process than simply claiming that changes due to genetic engineering are somehow more dangerous than genetic changes from random processes. Even restricting labeling to transgenic gene transfers challenges differentiation from naturally occurring transgenic transfers, which have been demonstrated.
I am still convinced that the bulk of the resistance to acceptance of genetically engineered foods is primarily twofold: objection to corporate control of agriculture, and fear of human health problems from consumption of “mutant” food. The first is a legitimate albeit non-scientific concern, and must be recognized as such. The second is science fiction run amok. The term "frankenfood" kind of gives that away. Again my apologies to those of you who fall into the third category of scientists with legitimate concerns. But this illustrates my point. How many people in the general population will see a GMO label and not react to either a corporate conspiracy theory or a kryptonite contamination theory? Especially in light of the dearth of evidence of adverse effects, in spite of years of testing. In principle, I have no objection to knowing what is in the food I eat, but GMO labeling as currently implemented qualifies as a political, not a scientific, exercise designed only to frighten people, not to enlighten them.
Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 1:18 AM PT: Updated again and edited to remove some of the snark.