Genetic Modification is a contentious topic these days. Many consumers demand their right to know and right to choose whether or not to purchase GMOs. Read on for some of the science behind GM tech, and reasons
this mom thinks labeling is a bad idea at best. This article originally appeared on
Grounded Parents, a parenting sister site to Skepchick.
As a parent, there are a few things I want my children to know. Of these, one is that vehement opinions can’t logically be had without at least basic understanding of an issue. Another is that it’s okay and righteous to change one’s mind when a convincing argument is presented. This is why I’ve recently had a change of heart when it comes to GMO labeling. I used to be very pro-GM technology, but felt that labeling would help appease consumer fears. I’m still very pro-GM technology, but now I also believe labeling will prove harmful, and should not be pursued. Please, hear me out before you start throwing labels like “Monsanto shill!”
As I’ve said, if you don’t understand transcription, translation, and protein synthesis and function at a high level at minimum, you don’t have sufficient understanding to justify an inherently anti-GM stance. While I won’t get deep enough to explain the minutiae of molecular biology, here is a briefing to start a layperson on genetic literacy: Essentially, proteins are the most basic functional components of living things. Proteins serve all purposes from structure, immunity, metabolic, nutritive, enzymatic functions, and more. They are macromolecules comprised of amino acid chains (polypeptides.) The sequence of amino acids in any protein determines its 3D structure. This sequence of amino acids is determined by codons, each codon coded for by 3 adjacent nucleotides. The DNA in a gene of any organism can be transcribed (into RNA), and translated (into proteins) in many varied permutations by alternative splicing of introns, allowing the functions of life to be carried out. This is a very abridged explanation, but there are some nice primers here and here.
A simplified diagram
How do GMOs work?
A GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) is technically defined as any plant, animal, or microbe whose genetic material has been intentionally manipulated by a scientist in vitro using recombinant DNA technology. However, selective breeding practiced since the beginning of agriculture is also intentional manipulation of organisms’ genomes, using a less precise and very lengthy process taking generations to achieve. Arguably, all organisms since the beginning of life could be deemed genetically modified. The difference centers in the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology – or DNA makes RNA makes protein (and not the other way around.) With our knowledge of protein structure, and how genes code for proteins, scientists can alter plants and animals in a precise, targeted manner by adjusting the nucleic acid sequence, or inserting sequences known to code for desirable traits.
How is Genetic Engineering of food beneficial?
Some Genetically Modified Organisms as they presently exist are beneficial, while others are arguably not as beneficial. Without getting into the particulars of the myriad GMO crops in existence, I must emphasize that GM is a toolbox; a set of techniques and not a product. Drought resistance, disease resistance, and increased vitamin content are just the tip of an iceberg of possibilities. Like any field of science and technology, there is fear of the unknown. Still, rather than falling for fear mongering, how about promoting and pursuing genetic literacy? Furthermore, rather than painting this toolbox with one brush, why not handle GM organisms on a more individualized basis?
When much of the public thinks GMOs, they think Frankenfood
There are horror stories being whispered around town that The Man has been releasing scary plants into the agricultural system with animal genes inserted! Pretty soon, they’ll have our lettuce and tomatoes walking around of their own accord! Okay, all kidding aside, there are two types of GM: cisgenic and transgenic. Cisgenic GMOs have been modified using sexually compatible organisms, making them quite comparable to traditionally bred organisms (think one root vegetable trait being introduced into another root vegetable.) A transgenic GMO, on the other hand, uses genetic material from a non-sexually compatible organism to introduce a desirable trait. Current US GMO regulations treat both cisgenic and transgenic organisms equally, although they are very different. While this is a topic for another day, it’ll suffice to say that applying the current stringent USDA regulations to cisgenic organisms will greatly encumber the research. Arguably, plants bred by cisgenesis should have laxer regulations. (Not to say that transgenic organisms don’t have their place and benefit.)
Likewise, when people think GMO, they think Evil Corporation Monsanto. In fact, Monsanto has largely and erroneously become synonymous with GMO. While I won’t get into the debate on reasons people believe Monsanto is evil (I don't believe the company is evil), I will say it stems from the company being a large, multinational corporation. And that, my friends, gets me to my main point:
Why shouldn’t GMOs be labeled?
1. Labeling regulations will hinder competition and growth among organizations like research institutions, universities, and private sector small and medium sized businesses, effectively clearing a nice, clean, path for large corporations like Monsanto. Contrary to popular belief, Monsanto is not the only player in the GMO game. Here is an incomplete list of organizations participating in R&D in the field. This list only includes institutions who actively work on GMO crops themselves. Other participants include sequencing laboratories (that help determine organisms’ genetic code or expressed genetic codes), experts in proteomics (study of protein structure and function), companies and individuals specializing in bioinformatics (analysis of large biological data), and more. Red tape is always easier for the rich to cut through and navigate. Anti-Monsanto types would be well-advised to reconsider their labeling stance.
2. Mandatory GMO labeling could hinder environmental protection efforts. Labeling will increase stigma associated with a technology that people don’t understand, thus arbitrarily increasing demand for non-GMO foods. GM technology has great potential to reduce water and energy required for production. While the increased yield from GM crops is tangible but still marginal, stigma could arguably obstruct progress analogous to the relatively recent roadblocks to stem cell research.
3. Labels simply stating generally that a product contains or is a GMO do not make sense; they don’t actually inform the consumer. What type of labels do anti-GMO proponents want? If a label is to be meaningful, it would have to provide detailed information, including the genetic change, and the ultimate protein change achieved. Would the average consumer understand this? IMO, the answer is a resounding NO.
4. Mandatory labeling is expensive. The end product of labeling, the label itself, would pose but a minute fraction of the cost. A lengthy and involved process would entail separating GMO and non-GMO foods, among other specifics. And who is going to pay for this? You guessed it–consumers of both GMO and non-GMO foods will pay for labeling in the form of higher food prices all around.
If a consumer wants a non-GM food, buy non-GM food! Good news for the concerned shopper! We already have labels that specify whether something has been modified using GM technology. Look for the Non-GMO Project or organic seal. As per strict USDA guidelines, foods labeled organic in the USA cannot be GMOs. We tend to label food for purity as per consumer perception. We don’t label food “non-Kosher.” We don’t label food “non-organic.” Both “Kosher” and “organic” are labels of purity. Therefore, it is illogical to label food as containing GMOs. Rather, if consumers want pure, non-GMO products, they should buy food labeled as such.
Bottom line: People fear what they don’t understand. You may say, “Let the consumer decide.” Consumers have been deciding about vaccines for a few years now to the detriment of herd immunity! But, I digress. Please, have the wisdom to trust a consensus of truly educated professionals across nearly all internationally accepted organizations with the authority and expertise to take a stance. Not only are GMOs generally considered safe, but GM technology is a powerful tool. Tools can be used to build beautiful and beneficial advancements for humanity, or they can be used as weapons. Please, don’t demonize tools unless they are being used as weapons. We are only in the infancy of the biotechnology age. With such a powerful tool in hand, let’s promote responsible use to benefit society.
Stay tuned or read the next in Kavin Senapathy's series on GMOs at Grounded Parents
