GMOS AND ACCEPTANCE BY GENERAL PUBLIC
Every single potato you have ever eaten is a genetically modified organism (GMO) that have been genetically modified through biochemistry. Potatoes are indigenous to Peru, South America. They don’t grow anywhere else. It has taken biochemists decades, centuries even, to develop the multiple species of potatoes we now enjoy and are grown all over the world. Different types of South American potatoes were crossed with each other thousands of times (traditional biochemistry), thus mixing all their desirable traits and undesirable traits, until perfect potatoes species were developed. Modern biochemistry (biochemistry after 1960) can target one gene, or amino acid, or enzyme and get a new species with the desired traits to the market much faster. The big corporations that have taken on the task of bioengineering our food supply have kept their proprietary information secret known only to themselves and the regulatory organizations governing them. Due to a public outcry for mandatory labeling of all GM foods, mandatory labeling was put before the court. The court in its decent refused to enact a law was not based on science and fact, but rather emotion. In order for the consumer to accept GMOs as a natural part of the food supply, scientists must be more open and forthcoming with the general public on the science behind genetically modified foods.
During the time the Ice Age was receding and earth warming up (approximately 100,000-10,000 years ago) hunting and gathering as a way of life receded with it. Most of the animals previously hunted were becoming extinct. Those animals that survived moved to warmer climates. Without the need to continuously move with the animals that supplied their food source, people settled in one place. Planting seeds and cultivating crops, and the domestications of animals had become possible. Ever since the first seed was planted farmers have looked for ways to decrease hunger and improve on their own wealth. These first farmers effectively used biotechnology to improve upon plant and animal species by cross-breeding plants to achieve better crops as in the example of the potato above. For an example of animal biotechnology in action you need go no further than today’s domestic dogs. All dogs come from one species; the gray wolf. About 15,000 years ago the gray wolf was domesticated and selectively bred for different characteristics. Today we have hundreds of dog breeds.
Over the last century traditional means of plant breeding, or selective hybridization, have significantly increased our food crops. In the 1950s new seed varieties and pesticides increased crop production. In the 1960s scientists found a way through genetic engineering to isolate a single gene from a strand of DNA and transfer it to another organism. Because DNA is the same in each organism whether it be animal, plant, or human when transferring a gene the host organism is able to read the gene code and take on the characteristics of that particular gene. This is called genetic engineering. This new technology has moved so fast that people are concerned that the benefits don’t outweigh the risk to the environment and human health.
The anti-GMO movement in the U.S. is largely made up of environmentalist, organic farmers, and consumers. Environmentalist may have a legitimate claim. GMOs pollen can infect non-GMO crops through bees, wind, or other pollinating factors. In response to pollen infecting non-GMO crops several mitigating solutions have been enacted, i.e., planting of tall trees to catch the pollen, or a no-plant zone around the crop, as well as other mitigating factors. While this may not be 100% effective it is a step in the right direction.
Organic farmers have a monetary interest in the demonization of GMOs. If people believe GMOs are unsafe they will naturally distrust the food supply and gravitate to organic foods, which are marketed as being healthier. At the center of this controversy is the Bt toxin that is inserted into some GMO foods, such as cotton, soy, and corn to kill insects. The problem with the Bt toxin as an argument against GMOs is that organic farmers are allowed to use it too. Organic farmers can use the Bt toxin because it is a naturally occurring substance in the soil and therefore considered organic.
The Bt toxin is cited as causing leaky gut syndrome in humans and animals. To create pest-resistant crops an enzyme from Bt toxin DNA was isolated and inserted into the DNA of a host plant. When an insect eats the crop, its stomach lining dissolves and kills the insect. Claims are that after eating GMO foods the stomach and intestinal linings dissolve to a point that allows food particles to escape and to mix in the blood before it is sufficiently broken down by the digestive process. There are several problems with this particular tactic. Doctors don’t all agree that leaky gut is a real syndrome and the few who do say it might be real also say that it is very difficult to diagnose. It could be caused by many different factors, and there is no test to determine with 100% assuredness whether or not someone has it.
Other anti-GMO rhetoric is often about animals that become sick after eating GMO feed and then miraculously healing after being fed non-GMO feed. Most of the GMO corn and soy grown in the U.S. is grown specifically for livestock feed. Under this scenario, there would be large epidemics of livestock becoming sick and dying. If this were the case, why don’t we hear more in the news about the 5 million cows raised for beef production in the U.S. becoming sick or dying? This isn’t the case.
All this rhetoric flies is in the face of scientific fact. Scientists from reputable organizations have made public statements and written in reputable scientific journals that GMOs are safe, that they are not significantly different from non-GMO food, and that they propose no different health risk from non-GMO foods.
America may be taking its cue from Europe. In Europe, the anti-GMO movement can be traced to Dolly, the first cloned sheep. European environmentalists were trying to attack the possible cloning of humans. When that didn’t work they found a much easier target in GMO foods. That led to an outcry for mandatory labeling, with which the E.U. complied. As a result of labeling in the E.U. people drastically decreased their purchase of GMO foods, which in turn decreased the need to import GMO food. Europe has not banned GMOs, they don’t import GMOs because there is no demand for them. England grows ½ of 1 percent of the worlds GMO crops. So while anti-GMO activists would have you believe that GMOs are banned in the E.U. that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Labeling effectively destroyed the GMO market in the E.U. Past legislation calling for mandatory labeling in the U.S. has failed. The legislation, as written, would not inform the public about GMOs. It would only indicate that GMOs were in the product. On top of that, if the product contains less than 1% of GMO ingredients, it would not need to be labeled at all. However, anti-GMO activists continue to demand that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) require labeling on cans. The FDA's own policy does not allow labeling of food that is considered safe and GMOs fall into that category. Scientists have repeatedly confirmed that GMO foods are not significantly different from non-GMO foods and have no higher health risk than non-GMO foods.
There is a misconception that because one of the FDA's employees, Micheal Taylor, previously worked for Monsanto, a major seed producer, that GMOs are unsafe. The FDA's hiring practices do not have any bearing on whether GMOs are safe or not. Yet anti-GMO activists would have you believe it is a sure sign of a government cover-up. Yes, Mr. Taylor worked for Monsanto. He first worked for the FDA right out of law school. He then worked for a law firm where Monsanto and other food companies were among its clients. Later he went back to the FDA and voluntarily recused himself from working on any matters that involved clients that he worked with at the firm. This type of conflict check procedure is a pretty standard in the legal field. Later Mr. Taylor was hired by Monsanto, not as an attorney, but rather as head of the policy department. For the 16 months that he was in the policy department he lobbied Monsanto to be fully transparent and to label their food. Because he was unsuccessful he quit and entered academia for the next 10 years teaching at Universities and medical schools about food safety. Later he was tapped by the FDA to work as its Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine. You might also remember Michael Taylor as being in the center of the Jack-in-the-Box e-Coli outbreak in the mid-1990s. Mr. Taylor worked at the FDA at the time. Because e-Coli is a naturally occurring substance, much like the Bt toxin, it was considered natural. In order for the FDA to have authority to inspect slaughterhouses for the e-Coli bacteria it must first be defined as an “aberrant.” Mr. Taylor went up against the FDA, the government organization that he worked for, and the courts to have it declared an aberrant in order to give the FDA authority to inspect slaughterhouses for e-Coli bacteria and ensure the food safety of Americans. This is not a man who wants to poison Americans. This is a man with America’s food safety as his first priority.
The public’s distrust of GMOs has no bearing on whether GMOs are safe. This distrust is derived from anti-GMO activists who demonize GMOs by calling them Frankenfoods and using scare tactics such as promoting the falsehood that GMOs will cause allergies, autism, and or leaky gut. Claims of government conspiracies to fire scientists who speak out against GMOs, the hiring of people from companies that produce GMOs, and adverse health claims, all play on the general publics emotions to breed fear. From Frankenfoods to government conspiracy theories, there is no wonder the public doesn’t trust GMOs. What is missing from this equation is a public discourse between the scientists, biologists, and agriculturist and the general public.
Anti-GMO activists have been loud and clear about their agenda. What little we hear from the pro-GMO side is gleaned from court decisions and failed legislation. What is missing from this equation is a public discourse between the scientists, biologists, microbiologists, agriculturist, and the general public. Fear is often caused by ignorance. This has nothing to do with intelligence or how smart you are, it only speaks to the uninformed. Once America can participate in an open dialog about the science, biology, benefits, and risks of GM crops it will start to pave the way a more informed decision about the safety and use of GMOs.
