Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as the name suggest, are any organism whose genetic structure has been modified through genetic engineering. Farmers have done this for thousands of years by breeding plants with a desired trait with another plant which lacks the desired trait. Recently, however, modern biologists have developed a more precise method of genetic engineering. By using special restriction enzymes, biologists can cut a section of DNA out of an organism and then inserts it into the target species’ genome. Although the public has shown significant distrust towards modern methods of genetic engineering, scientific data from independent studies show that GMOs pose no additional health risk and can be more environmentally friendly than conventional farming. As such, it is our duty to continue research into genetic engineering, in both corporate and university settings.
Recently, the public has become increasingly aware of the fact that most of their foods contain GMOs. In fact, fifty-two percent of Americans polled believe that foods containing GMOs are not safe to eat and only thirty-five percent believe they are safe to eat (
ABC). At sixty-two percent, an even higher percent of women did not think such foods are safe to eat (
ABC). Public distrust of GMOs has lead to a grassroots movement in the US which is attempting to get foods containing GMOs labeled. Recently, Governor of Vermont, Peter Shumlin has passed just such a bill. The bill will require all food products made in Vermont containing GMOs to be labeled (Not on the label). According to the Center for Food Safety, sixteen other states have similar legislation in the making. Several food-industry groups have already declared intention to take the bill to court, but if it survives, it may set a precedent for similar legislation to be passed in other states (Not on the label).
This viewpoint is not localized to the United States either. On the contrary, European nations show an even larger distrust of organic foods than does the United States. The European Union has long since had legislation in place requiring the labeling of food containing GMOs. Turkey is also passing anti-GMO legislation in an attempt to assimilate more to the standards of the European Union which they hope to join (An absurd law). Their version of the legislation, however, is even more harmful. The law will ban cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, along with generation of any GM animals or microorganisms. While it does not explicitly ban research into further GMOs, it creates an application process which will render any GMO research impractical as well hinder progress in other biological research (An absurd law). Why, one might ask, is such a large portion of the world so adamantly against the use of GMOs?
Perhaps one of the most legitimate reasons is that genetically engineered crops can cross pollinate with nearby plants which are not genetically engineered. Several years ago, local farmer Percy Schmeiser found that some of the rapeseed (the plant from which canola oil is derived) on his farm was resisting the herbicide he was using to clear his fields for the next season (
CommonDreams). What occurred was that Roundup Ready canola on a nearby farm owned by the agricultural giant Monsanto Inc. had cross pollinated with his crop. Schmeiser was forced to remove the herbicide resistant plant from his fields by hand and wound up in a legal battle with Monsanto Inc. over the damages (
CommonDreams). The case was taken to the Canadian Supreme Court where a 5-4 ruling in favor of Monsanto Inc. found that genetically modified crops can be patented (
CommonDreams). Schmeiser was not forced to pay damages, however, as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his field (
CommonDreams). While Monsanto Inc. wound up paying Schmeiser the cost of removing the rapeseed, Schmeiser’s story still acts as a cautionary tale of the danger of GE crops spreading to nearby fields (
CommonDreams).
Science, however, already has a potential solution to the problem of contamination from GE crops. In two separate studies from Farren Isaacs at Yale University and George Church from Harvard Medical Schools researchers have been able to create a GE plant which depends on some artificial nutrient to survive (Kept on a leash). This means the farmer who is planting the GE crop can control exactly where it can or cannot grow (Kept on a leash). If the GE crop were to attempt to cross pollinate with a plant in a field without the nutrient, the resulting offspring would die, preventing the spread of the GE crop to nearby fields (Kept on a leash). While this technology has not been implemented in the field yet, it could solve one of the largest objections to GE crops.
Another common objection amongst the public to GMOs is the potential health risks they may pose. The majority of the public within the United States believes that GMOs pose significant health risk, but is there any real evidence backing up this claim? The World Health Organization (WHO), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the American Medical Association (AMA) all agree that no research thus far has indicated any significant health risk associated with GM crops (
McClatchy). Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the AMA have stated that there is no point labeling food products containing GMOs as there is no evidence genetic engineering changes the “quality, safety, or any other attribute of the food” (
ABC). If this is the case, then where are so many people getting the notion that foods containing GMOs are harmful? Much of the anti-GMO sentiment sprang from a study done by Gilles-Éric Séralini. Séralini performed a study in which he compared the mortality rate of mice fed with genetically modified corn to that of a control group (
Panchin). Within his study, he showed startling images of mice riddled with tumors. Not surprisingly, these images shocked and appalled the public leading to a widespread distrust of GMOs. What Séralini failed to mention, however, is that his study was tragically flawed. Whether intentional or not, Séralini chose a breed of mice which have a high tendency for tumors regardless of diet. His study also failed to mention that due to low sample sizes, the difference in mortality between his control group and the GMO fed group was not statistically significant (
Panchin). His study was eventually retracted (
ScienceDirect) but it was too late. The damage to GMOs reputation had already been done.
In addition to being just as safe to consume as organic foods, GM crops pose significant benefits to the farmers who plant them. Peter Shumlin signing the new GMO labeling bill into law in Vermont has left many farmers shocked. Bill Rowell, from Green Mountain Dairy, did not understand why his state was so adamantly against GMOs. Rowell is the keeper of a meticulous dairy farm which grows genetically modified corn to feed his cattle. His interviewer noted that his farm “ appears to have not a single blade of grass out of place in its large complex of five barns that measure 400-500 feet long a piece” (
BurlingtonFreePress). Rowell even stopped midway through the interview to pick up a piece of trash he saw laying in his grass. He is also quite conscious of his environmental impact, which is why he runs almost three million dollars worth of methane generators. These generators burn any methane produced by animal manure, simultaneously preventing greenhouse gases from escaping into the atmosphere and generating clean energy. According to Rowell, “We see a greater yield, and the yield is drought tolerant” (
BurlingtonFreePress). This means he can continue to produce an enormous twenty-five million gallons of milk, even during drought heavy years. This technology could help feed those struggling with hunger all over the world. Rowell also is able to spray less pesticide and herbicide which reduces the amount of fuel and labor he has to use. For an environmentally conscious farmer like Rowell, the use of GM crops seems to be a no brainer.
In spite of the massive amounts of scientific evidence that stack up in favor of genetically modified crops, most of the public is still opposed to the use of GMOs. This opposition varies in intensity from those who simply choose not to eat foods containing GMOs, to those radicals who have threatened to destroy the research of genetic engineers. As farmer Rowell says, “opponents of GMOs are basing their opinions on sentiment rather than science, which remains inconclusive on any detrimental health effects from GMOs after nearly 20 years of use” (
BurlingtonFreePress). While others would argue it is the job of scientists to prove conclusively that GMOs are in no way harmful, that isn’t the way science in the United States has ever really worked. We have always been a nation that leaps head first into the newest generation of technology. It is precisely this attitude which has kept our nation on the cutting edge of scientific research. Allowing the opinions of the underinformed to steer us away from GMO research would be irresponsible. We must, therefore, continue research into GMOs, both in corporate and university settings. This will keep us on the cutting edge of GMO use in industry while also providing objective, third-party evaluations on the safety and ramifications of GMOs.
“An Absurd Law.” Nature 463.7284 (2010): 1000–1000. Print.
“Kept on a leash.” Nature 517 (2015): 411–411. Print.
“Not on the label” Nature 509 (2014): 399–400. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment