Should GMOs Freak Us Out?

Think GMOs don’t affect you? Think again.

Not only do 60 to 70 percent of processed foods contain genetically modified organisms, but speculation is brewing that McDonald’s, the country’s most successful fast food company, will begin making French fries using genetically engineered potatoes in the relatively near future.

So whether you like it or not, GMOs are at America’s doorstep. The news has sparked concern, notably from consumer and environmental group Food & Water Watch, whose November letter exhorted McDonald’s not to sell “biotech fries.”

GMOs are genetically-modified organisms—a straightforward definition. “Breeding” is how scientists refer to the ancient, traditional practice of breeding plants (read: without gene manipulation by scientists in a lab setting).

The rest of the conversation, however, has been subject to debate, from possible health risks to the environmental impact.

This sort of talk makes GMOs sound pretty scary, but are they? We asked two experts to answer a few questions.

Will GMOs make me sick?

Genetic modification (often called “GM”) involves scientists altering one gene to influence a single trait. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, this could have could have negative, unforeseen consequences for other traits.

And could this affect our health? “It’s indisputable that possibly some of these crops could introduce new health risks to consumers,” said Gurian-Sherman. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, ”could introduce new allergens or toxins into the food supply.”

He pointed to an incident in 1996, when scientists inserted a gene from a Brazil nut into soybeans—unintentionally transferring an allergen. During testing, patients allergic to Brazil nuts had a reaction to the altered soybeans. Development of the product halted and it never reached market, but Gurian-Sherman worries what might have happened if testing failed to reveal the allergen.

"Breeding can address those things," he said. "A plant will protect itself from having undesirable traits by changing multiple genes in its progeny." That’s not something a GM crop can do.

Cathleen Enright, the executive vice president of biotech lobby BIO, disagrees with Gurian-Sherman, and directed us to the BIO-run website, GMO Answers.

"Before they reach the market, crops from GM seeds are studied extensively to make sure they are safe for people, animals and the environment," reads the website. "Today’s GM products are the most researched and tested agricultural products in history."

Gurian-Sherman disputes this, noting that long-term testing is not required by the Food and Drink Administration. “The longest tests that are done are about 90 days. [Real] long-term tests would be at least a year to two years,” he said. “The tests that are done now, they may pick up a major toxicity. But there’s nothing to suggest the tests would pick up longer-term things… like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or cancer. Those things take a long time to develop.”

Additionally, the FDA doesn’t carry out or monitor the testing. That’s left to the company producing the GM product.

Are GMOs bad for the environment?

"The adoption of GMOs has had a positive impact on sustainable farming practices," Enright contends. She pointed to a global 45 percent reduction in pesticide application between 1996 and 2011. (Gurian-Sherman counters that although pesticide use is down, it’s being applied over ever-wider stretches of land.)

Enright also touted the use of glyphosate, which she says is a “greener herbicide.” Glyphosate, which is manufactured by Monsanto, is better known by its trade name, Roundup. The herbicide is designed to take on pests that attack Roundup Ready crops, which are GM corn, soybean, and other crops developed by Monsanto. Today, about 90 percent of soybeans and 70 percent of corn and cotton grown in the United States are from Roundup Ready seeds. (Essentially, Monsanto sells both the problem and the solution.)

Gurian-Sherman, on the other hand, says GM crops undermine sustainable farming techniques such as crop rotation, which is widely considered beneficial because it makes soil healthier and thwarts pests. It would also reduce the need for strong chemical herbicides.

"The technology, as it’s being developed, is basically used for huge acreage crops, grown year after year in the same place," Gurian-Sherman explained. "We know that’s not sustainable. That system has inherent problems because it does not work with biology. It works against biology."

Is the cost of GMOs worth it?

"Sustainable farming isn’t just about the betterment of the environment, it’s also economically better," Enright said. Economic benefits have certainly been available to large-scale farmers who benefit from government subsidies, which encourage them to grow crops like corn and soybeans—two of the most common GM crops grown in the U.S.

Smaller outfits, however, have suffered. In January 2013, GM heavyweight Monsanto sued 410 farmers and 56 small businesses for seed patent infringement; they hadn’t paid for seeds before planting them. (If a farmer plants legally-purchased seeds, then replants seeds taken from that crop, Monsanto considers it a theft.)

GMOs have also proved lucrative for the companies that make them. By creating a system in which farmers are dependent upon their products—farmers must buy Roundup Ready because Roundup seeds require it—scientists have an incentive to continue developing GM technologies, rather than investing in more traditional (and potentially more sustainable) breeding.

The immense pricetag of GMOs is further reason to perpetuate the cyle. “It’s an extremely expensive technology,” Gurian-Sherman said. “It costs $140 million to develop a typical trait, and that doesn’t include the failures. For every trait that works, there’s probably 50 that don’t.”

Could GMOs help feed the world’s hungry?

As Enright notes, the world’s population is expected to hit 9 billion people in 2050. “We need every tool in the tool box if we’re going to increase the yield that will be necessary to feed our population in 2050,” she said. Crops altered to better weather droughts and pestilence could feed populations long-plagued by these issues, like those in Africa.

Gurian-Sherman dismissed the notion as fear-mongering. ”We produce enough food now,” he said. ”It’s not being fairly distributed. The issue of hunger is a problem of poverty, not food production.”

What’s the future of GMOs?

Both Gurian-Sherman and Enright agree that genetic engineering has some benefits; Gurian-Sherman believes a more sophisticated version of the technology could produce GM crops without health or environmental risks.

But he thinks the technology, in its current form, is too crude and untested to warrant the release of GMOs into the global food supply. He also believes GMOs will have a devastating effect on the environment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Enright believes the GMOs are “going to be critical to feeding the world.”

They may both be right. Regardless of the impacts GMOs have on global health, environments, and economics, they’re already viewed as a potential answer to world hunger. And more telling: Even if you’ve been avoiding processed foods, you’re probably already eating GMOs.