The ability to alter the genetic makeup of a crop has been the topic of heated debate for decades. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) — crops with genomes that have been augmented with DNA from other organisms — have permanently changed the agricultural industry. Scientists have created genetically engineered (GE) varieties of crops containing genes that protect them from pests, weeds, or even certain plant viruses.
Even though the first GMOs hit the market 23 years ago, the debate surrounding their safety still rages, fueled by misinformation about the impact they have on health.
Genetically engineering crops allows scientists to transfer desirable traits individually — a much more efficient process than cross-breeding, a less high-tech method that may also transfer a number of traits that may pose a threat to the newly created plant. Cross-breeding also limits the palette of new traits to traits that are already present in either the male or female plant; genetic engineering, on the other hand, allows for scientists to use foreign but desirable traits.
GMOs are also not limited to “unnatural,” synthetically engineered uses — they can take advantage of natural processes as well. For instance, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was discovered to be a naturally-occurring insecticide more than 100 years ago. Recently, bioengineers have modified the genes of crops such as corn to express the insecticidal protein present in this natural microorganism, foregoing the need to physically spray crops with it separately. As a result, the crop itself is toxic to insects, and neighboring fields and ecosystems are largely unaffected.
Fear of GMOs, and their purported effects on health, gives consumers another reason to stick to organic. The European Union prohibits farmers from growing GMOs; other nations like India have dragged their feet in allowing the cultivation of GMOs because of vehement backlash. In the U.S., products that contain GMOs will soon be required by federal law to be labeled as such.
These precautions, however, are woefully unfounded; as of right now, there is no trustworthy evidence that any GMO-derived food poses health risks to humans. If anything, genetic modifications make crops safer for agricultural workers (genetic tweaks make crops more resistant to damage from insects and viral infections, so plants need fewer pesticides) and even make them more nutritious, bringing a healthful variety to more people worldwide. According to the WHO, no foods available today based on genetically modified crops have been shown to have a negative effect on human health in the countries in which they have been approved.
“I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that GM crops are any more dangerous than their conventional counterparts,” Winter said.
So why do the anti-GMO myths persist? A group of biotechnologists and philosophers from Ghent University hypothesized that negative portrayals of GMOs are “intuitively appealing.” The idea of introducing foreign genes into the food you eat, the researchers argue, is not — meddling with the characteristics of organisms seems “unnatural,” and scientists are often accused of overreaching their boundaries, “playing God.”
While GMOs have so far not been shown to harm consumers, that’s not to say they never could. “There is no evidence of any harmful impacts from eating genetically engineered crops that are grown today, but I can’t say that about crops from ten years from now,” Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), told Futurism. Food safety regulation, then, will become even more important as new genetic modification tools like CRISPR become more common. “Regulators will need to apply a case-by-case approach to ensure the safety of consumers and producers alike when it comes to genetically engineered crops,” Jaffe said.