Up To Date Presents Food for Thought Entry 3: GM Uh-Oh

Up To Date Presents Food for Thought Entry 3: GM Uh-Oh

Genetically modified organisms are something people either love or love to hate. They are created by splicing the genes of a plant or animal with genes from entirely different organisms, often viruses or bacteria. This, in turn, creates a seemingly beneficial effect for the organism. These can include corn that makes its own insecticide, soy that resists popular weed killers such as Roundup, and salmon that grow faster. However, there are numerous problems with both the GMOs themselves and the claims made to defend them.

The first claim worth mentioning is that the impact of GMOs on the environment is insignificant. In fact, a genetically modified salmon is now available to be sold. This is despite a small risk of the salmon being able to escape and negatively affect the wild population. In the words of the New York Times, AquaBounty, the company who produces the fish, said that the fish would only be grown inland and that only sterile females would be sold at market (Pollack 2010). However, this does not entirely negate the flight risk if these fish do get farmed offshore. To make matters worse, up to 5 percent of the fish may not actually be sterile, according to AquaBounty’s own studies (Pollack 2010). As a result, any escaped fish may be able to breed with the wild population, thus introducing the modified genes to the population. This would permanently contaminate the gene pool of even the wild salmon, leaving the population compromised.

Then, there’s the matter of crops resistant to the herbicide known as glyphosate, a key ingredient in the popular Bayer (formerly Monsanto) product called Roundup. GMO crops made to resist Roundup include several varieties of corn, soybeans and cotton (Wilkerson 2015). However, overuse of an herbicide can also cause superweeds, much like an overused antibiotic can cause superbugs (Wilkerson 2015). That is exactly what happened. Now, there are weeds resistant to Roundup, and the increase in pesticide use is massive. In fact, a USDA report stated that “an additional 383 million pounds of herbicides have been used than if Roundup Ready crops were never introduced” (Wilkerson 2015). That much pesticide could have devastating environmental effects, in addition to harming human health. That may be terrible news already, but the situation is worsened by the new, more toxic pesticides on the market now.

One more recent development in particular has left many anti-GMO advocates rather concerned. Due to the previously-mentioned overuse of Roundup in the 2000s, many weeds are now resistant to it in a way not unlike antibiotic resistance in bacteria (Pollack 2012). As a result, biotech companies were looking for a new herbicide to use, and they found one with a particularly interesting history. Dow found an herbicide once used in the infamous chemical Agent Orange during the Vietnam War (Pollack 2012). That herbicide is known as 2,4-D, and corn varieties resistant to it have since been produced and made publicly available. As it happens, cotton and soybean variants for this purpose are not far behind (Pollack 2012). Herbicides have the effect of killing weeds, and it is quite possible that many species of various kinds may be negatively affected by a sudden spray from the sky. In short, environments would be devastated just so farmers could yield a few more ears of corn.

And then, there’s BT corn, which is genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide. The idea is to stop caterpillars and other insect larvae from eating the corn through the release of a toxin. This toxin is taken from a naturally occurring type of soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (Mercola 2013), and it kills insects by eating through the walls of the gastrointestinal tract and entering the bloodstream. In fact, this corn is actually listed by the EA as an insecticide (Charman 2002). Unfortunately, people are not necessarily immune from this toxin, and in fact, it has been found in human blood (Mercola 2013). According to Mercola’s article, 93% of pregnant women in a Canadian study had the toxin in their blood, and 80% of the babies did too (2013). Speculation on why this is the case ranges from consumption of high fructose corn syrup to BT toxin being produced in animal and human guts, which is a frightening possibility. If BT toxin does in fact harm humans, the effects could be cataclysmic.

The possible effects of BT toxin in the bloodstream include, but are not limited to, autoimmune diseases, allergies, and learning disorders. For example, numerous indicators of allergies, such as the presence of interleukins and certain antibodies, were present in an Italian study on mice. In addition to that, rats fed another BT corn variety experienced liver and kidney damage, in addition to signs of cancer and everything else mentioned above (Mercola 2013). If these same effects apply to humans, that would explain the recent rise in several learning disabilities, allergies, and autoimmune disorders in humans. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that there is a correlation between GMO foods and increased disorder rates. As was written on Alternet by Jeffrey M. Smith, problems that improved by switching to an organic diet include digestive issues, mood disorders, and obesity (Smith 2017). In fact, all of these were listed as improved by over 50% of those tested, with smaller amounts reporting improvements with allergies, hormonal problems, and cardiovascular issues (Smith 2017). If this is to be believed, then GMO products aren’t really the saviors that biotech companies love to herald them as.

To pour even more salt into the field, GMO products aren’t even conclusively proven to be safe in laboratory testing. In fact, the testing of these products as a whole is flawed far beyond belief. According to Alternet, a French study repeatedly found an increased risk of liver and kidney damage in rats consuming GMO food, in addition to severe hormonal disruptions (2014). Crucially, all of these factors emerged after the three-month mark, which is when Monsanto concluded their studies. This indicates that GMOs have serious long-term effects, but this study alone doesn’t tell the full story. For a brief time in 2013, this study was actually retracted after outcry from pro-GMO scientists and companies, but has since been re-published (Alternet 2014). Even then, this saga shows just how far-reaching the influence of GMOs is, and these actions make the big companies look like they have something to hide.

The image of the big biotech companies keeping a secret from the public is not a favorable one for them, and the situation is not helped by their influence on the United States’ government. Take, for example, HR 933, a law passed in 2013 with the signature of President Obama (RT 2013). It was a general spending bill, but one Sen. Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, snuck in an incredibly seedy provision granting Monsanto and similar companies immunity from certain kinds of lawsuits that their products could cause. Over a quarter of a million people signed a petition opposing the provision, but it became law anyway (RT 2013). Even if this website comes from a very questionable source, which is the Russian government, what is shown here is an American government system corrupted to its core by corporate influence. In fact, Senator Blunt even worked with Monsanto to craft the legislation, and got no punishment worse than a humorous Wikipedia edit because of it, even for such a brazen conflict of interest (RT 2013). That is certainly a shameful display from a sitting Senator in particular and American government in general. If the industries peddling potentially harmful products are getting protected by the government, then we are effectively forced into a system that could be detrimental to us.

Through cooperation with the manufacturers, the FDA claims to be able to verify the safety of GMO products. However, they consider most GMOs substantially equivalent to regular food, thus allowing the products to be sold right away (FAS). The GMOs that meet this requirement are automatically registered as safe, and don’t have to go through FDA testing (FAS). However, there are numerous critics of this method of regulation, with many still unsure of GMO safety. This is a plainly obvious loophole in regulations, and to make matters worse, the consultation process isn’t even mandatory, but voluntary (FAS). For example, if a GMO company wasn’t concerned about their public image, they could possibly just sell the GMO without testing if it and the standard crop are substantially equivalent. This could allow for mildly allergenic or unsafe GMO crops to infiltrate the market, causing many allergic reactions and much general discord.

Meanwhile, the European Union has taken a much harsher stance on GMOs. Granted, Europe’s increased skepticism to GMOs may have been due to events like the Chernobyl disaster and the epidemic of Mad Cow disease (Thompson 2021), but bad science is bad science. Also, the skepticism was very much rooted in how US biotech companies approached the EU in such an aggressive manner, begging European regulators to take the American regulators for their word on GMOs (Thompson 2021). In fact, one could liken the biotech industry’s behavior in Europe to that of a partier who just can’t take a hint. Basically, there was going to be an adverse reaction, and Europe provided that in spades. For example, when rBST was introduced into dairy cows to increase yields, Americans were milking it for all it was worth. On the other hand, Europe banned rBST on animal health grounds (Thompson 2021). Also, when American biotech tried to force GMO crops onto European farms, the European public wasn’t having it.  In short, GMOs are a largely American phenomenon, if mostly because no one else really wants them.

One of the biggest reasons as to why GMOs are so prevalent is because there is no federal regulation requiring labels on GMO products as of this writing. Of course, that will change beginning in 2022 (Berry 2021), but the labeling process will still be flawed. The failure here is in the terminology, because the label will read “bioengineered” (Berry 2021) in place of a more common term. Considering the rareness of the term that is actually going to be on the labels, this measure is about as toothless as any other American food safety measure. This is down to the simple lack of understanding and information on the topic that most Americans have, and I doubt many will remember the actual meaning of the “bio-” reflex. There may be many words with that prefix that are in everyday use, but I can speak from experience that there are more common words for GMOs than “bioengineered.”

Finally, there is the matter of the Svalbard Global Seed Bank, also known as the Doomsday Vault. This cold, remote facility, deep inside a Norwegian mountain in the far north of even that country, houses millenia’s worth of seeds (Duggan). Its purpose is to safeguard any agricultural crop variety it can, ensuring biodiversity in the human food supply (Duggan). This is important because “biodiversity has decreased to the point that now only about 30 crops provide 95% of human food-energy needs” (Duggan). If anything were to happen to one of these varieties, it is entirely possible that supply chains around the world would get disrupted. In fact, biodiversity is incredibly important for the sustainability of our food sources, preventing crops from going extinct due to disease or drought. The existence of this place is very reassuring, because it shows that there will always be an alternative to GMOs.

Genetically modified organisms have an outsized influence on our society and our stomachs, at least in America. However, there is hope. Europe has long since rejected genetic engineering, and even America isn’t far from doing something about it. It’s not a lot, but it’s certainly a start. If we can build off of this momentum, we can take back control of our food. Maybe then, we won’t have to rely on specific varieties of crops. Maybe then, corporate culture won’t be as dominant as it is now, even for our most essential needs. Maybe then, we won’t have to engineer our food. The light is at the end of the tunnel, and we can walk the necessary distance. We can solve the GMO crisis.

Works Cited

.org, Alternet. “Major Study: Monsanto GMO Corn Can Cause Damage to Liver and Kidneys, and Severe Hormonal Disruption.” Alternet.org, February 9, 2021. https://www.alternet.org/2014/06/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-and/. 

Berry, Donna. “Preparing for GMO Labeling in 2022.” Food Business News RSS, March 17, 2021. https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/17559-preparing-for-gmo-labeling-in-2022#:~:text=Many%20countries%20require%20genetically%20modified%20foods%20to%20be,required%20to%20label%20products%20containing%20GMOs%20by%202022. 

Charman, Karen. “Genetically Engineered Food: Promises and Perils – Real Food.” Mother Earth News, 2002. https://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/genetically-engineered-food-zmaz02onzgoe. 

Duggan, Jennifer. “Norway: ‘Doomsday’ Vault Where World’s Seeds Are Kept Safe.” Time.
Time. Accessed April 9, 2021. https://time.com/doomsday-vault/. 

International, RT. “Obama Signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Written by Monsanto-Sponsored
Senator.” RT International, 2013.
https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/. 

Mercola, Dr. Joseph. “Eating This Could Turn Your Gut Into a Living Pesticide Factory.” HuffPost. HuffPost, March 31, 2013. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bt-corn_b_2442072. 

Pollack, Andrew. “Dow Corn, Resistant to a Weed Killer, Runs Into Opposition.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Apr. 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/business/energy-environment/dow-weed-killer-runs-into-opposition.html. 

Pollack, A. (2010, September 04). Modified salmon is safe, f.d.a. says. Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/health/policy/04salmon.html?searchResultPosition=10

Smith, Jeffrey M. “16 Health Problems That Improved in Patients Who Switched From GMO to Organic Diets.” Alternet.org, December 3, 2020. https://www.alternet.org/2017/11/16-health-problems-improved-patients-who-switched-gmo-organic-diets/.

Thompson , Paul B. “How We Got to Now: Why the US and Europe Went Different Ways on GMOs.” The Conversation, March 11, 2021. https://theconversation.com/how-we-got-to-now-why-the-us-and-europe-went-different-ways-on-gmos-48709. 

U.S. Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops. Accessed April 9, 2021. https://biosecurity.fas.org/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html. 

Wilkerson, Jordan. “Why Roundup Ready Crops Have Lost Their Allure.” Science in the News.
Harvard University, October 1, 2017.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/. 

Zhou, Wen. “The Patent Landscape of Genetically Modified Organisms.” Science in the News, August 11, 2015. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/.