Genetically modified food
Genetically modified (GM) food or, more correctly, genetically engineered food is any food derived from organisms which had their genomes modified using the technique of DNA recombination.[wp] In this technique, genetic material is isolated from one organism and directly introduced into another. There is no requirement for the source and target organisms to be sexually compatible, and the transfer of genes can be highly specific, introducing only a single desired trait. This is unlike conventional breeding, which requires sexual compatibility and the offspring has an unpredictable mixture of traits from both parents.
GM food is the subject of a grotesque manufactroversy created mainly by environmental groups and organic food producers. The controversy is the most intense in Europe and India. The most common claimed dangers of GM food include adverse health effects resulting from the consumption of such foods, negative environmental impacts of GM crops, and ulterior motives and/or business practices of the suppliers of GM seed, particularly Monsanto.
Many claims made by the opponents of GM food are a product of ignorance and misinformation, and some are highly dependent on appeals to nature. The regulations on GM food created in response to anti-GMO activism are one of the worst offenses against evidence-based policy making ever committed. To date, there was not even a single documented instance of harm arising from the consumption of GM foods.
 Pros and cons
Since DNA recombination is a very powerful technique which allows for almost arbitrary modifications to be introduced into the genome, GM food can have a variety of traits which do not occur in nature and are impossible to obtain using others methods of breeding. It is a means to short-circuit the millions of years of evolution and artificial selection which would be required for the desirable traits to arise spontaneously.
On the other hand, the newly introduced traits might disrupt the ecosystem surrounding a GM crop field, particularly when GM crops interbreed with wild relatives. There exists technology to prevent interbreeding, but it is not used due to its negative public perception. Most GM traits are also covered by patents, which means that cultivating a GM crop requires the payment of license fees to the company which commercialized the given trait. This is somewhat similar to pharmaceutical patents, and traditionally bred varieties can be patented as well, so whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your opinion on patent law.
 Common GM traits
The most common GM traits found in commercial crops focus on increasing yields by conferring immunity to pests, weeds and diseases. These traits translate into an easily quantifiable financial gains for the farmer, so they were the first to be commercialized. The majority of GM crops have one or more of the following traits:
- Herbicide tolerance (HT). This type of trait confers immunity to a herbicide, typically glyphosate (also known as Roundup). Spraying with this herbicide kills the weeds without affecting the crop. This allows the farmer to easily avoid tillage, which is normally done to control weeds, but accelerates soil erosion. HT crops usually require more herbicides than traditional ones, but the broad spectrum herbicides used on HT crops are typically less toxic than traditional selective herbicides, leading to a net reduction of the environmental footprint. Canola and soy are examples of common HT crops.
- Bt toxin production. Bt toxins are proteins produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringens which are lethal to some species of insect pests, primarily moths and beetles. Bt extract is often used as an insecticide in organic farming. When an insect attempts to feed off a plant that produces a Bt toxin, it quickly dies. Bt crops require significantly less insecticides than their traditional counterparts. Corn is an example of a common Bt crop.
- Virus resistance. By introducing genes coding for viral coat proteins, plants can be made resistant to viruses. The best known example is the Rainbow variety of papaya, which is resistant to the papaya ringspot virus and is credited with saving the papaya farming industry in Hawaii.
There are also many other possible traits in the research stage or awaiting regulatory approval.
- Increased intrinsic yield. There is an ongoing research project called C4 Rice, which aims to create rice which uses the more efficient C4 photosynthesis pathway from corn, rather than the C3 photosynthesis native to rice.
- Nitrogen fixation. There is a project to achieve symbiosis between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and cereals, a feature now restricted to legumes, which would obviate or significantly reduce the need for artificial fertilizer in their cultivation.
- Disease resistance. This ranges from blight-resistant potatoes to bananas resistant to fusarium wilt.
- Biofortified food has increased nutritional value or contains essential nutrients not present in traditional varieties. The best known example is Golden Rice, a humanitarian project to develop rice containing vitamin A (beta-carotene) in order to prevent vitamin A deficiency induced blindness in the developing countries.
- Improved handling characteristics. This includes the now discontinued Flavr Savr tomato with delayed ripening and the nonbrowning Arctic Apple.
 Controversy over GM food
Genetic modification plays straight into what Isaac Asimov called "The Frankenstein Complex," where there is an irrational fear of those who "play God" by mucking with nature. Indeed, many opponents refer to GM food as "Frankenfood".
Several concerns have been raised over GM foods:
- Concern over lack of "independent testing" of GM foods. However, non-GM varieties are not tested at all, so even manufacturer testing is a substantial improvement. Furthermore, the manufacturer-ran studies are examined by the FDA during the approval process, making it very difficult to falsify results.
- The rise in food allergies correlating to the rise of GM foods. All that can be said is correlation does not equal causation. The rise in allergies is a common phenomenon in developed countries, even though the popularity of GM food varies wildly between them. Furthermore, new proteins introduced by genetic modification are required to have short digestion times in order to be found fit for human consumption, precisely because long-digestion proteins are potential allergens. Starlink corn is a famous example of a GM crop that was found unfit for human consumption (long before it was brought to market) on this basis.
- The impact on the environment where GM resistance leads to increased use of herbicides. So far there is very little data suggesting a major increase in herbicide use, and this completely ignores how glyphosate is far less toxic than many alternative herbicides (such as Atrazine) - meaning that increases in herbicide use aren't always negative. Overuse of glyphosate has led to some weeds becoming resistant to the herbicide, however, better weed managment practices and careful use of selective herbicides can help mitigate resistance.
- What might happen if modified genes transfer laterally to other organisms. For example, herbicide resistance could transfer to related weedy species, producing herbicide resistant weeds - obviously an undesirable outcome. Occurrence of this gene flow has been confirmed in field studies, but so far it's uncertain whether this is a serious concern or not. It should be noted that herbicide resistance is not a concern unique to GM crops, nor does herbicide resistance require gene flow to occur.
- The legal implications of cross-pollination between GM crops and non-GM crops planted on other farms nearby. While activists commonly claim that biotech companies (like Monsanto) will sue farmers for accidental contamination via cross-pollination, nobody has proven that this has or will ever happened. In 2012, a group of organic farmers preemptively sued Monsanto for this very reason, but their case was thrown out of course when they were unable to present any evidence that supported their claims. A case commonly used by activists as an example is Percy Schmeiser's case - but in his case, he intentionally selected for GM traits in canola pollinated from a neighboring field (by spraying his own field with glyphosate, which killed off all of his plants but left the pollination-planted ones intact), and then used the seed on his farm (planting a sum total of approximately 1,030 acres with the seed). Schmeiser attempted to claim that he was innocent and that the glyphosate-resistant crops appeared on his fields via pollination or from a passing truck's spillage, but the judge pointed out that all 1030 acres were planted with glyphosate-resistant canola at a purity of 95-98%, far beyond the 0.5-2% typically seen from accidental contamination. Furthermore, the fact that Schmeiser intentionally sprayed glyphosate on his crops betrayed his knowledge of the seed, since glyphosate will kill any non-resistant plants. Monsanto won the lawsuit, but Schmeiser mounted a massive misinformation campaign online, which has led to a great many people being unaware of the true facts on this case.
- A common myth perpetrated by GM opponents is that the crops use "terminator seed" technology (technical name Genetic Use Restriction Technology, GURT) which causes the crops to yield sterile seeds. However, while testing has been conducted on GURT, there is actually a moratorium on its commercial use due to public opposition. Monsanto has also pledged not to use the technology. Despite all the propaganda, GURT is actually a good thing because it stops planted GM crops from expanding into the wild - one of the few realistic concerns about GM crops. Seed that cannot be saved for replanting is nothing new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, in wide use since the 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation due to the existence of hybrid vigor. Therefore, new seed must be bought every year from a plant breeder to keep its desirable characteristics.
So far, all evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of safety of GM foods for human consumption. A wide variety of reputable organizations have stated that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, including the US National Academies of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Commission, and many more. Some articles even argue that the repression of GM foods by the environmental movement is the real problem. At least one high-profile environmentalist has changed his anti-GMO stance as a result of learning the actual science. (Did he simply sell out to Monsanto? Every anti-GMO blogger at the time thought so, but evidence has not been forthcoming.) If anything, the environmental issues are far more worthy of concern than health issues, despite what many anti-GM activists seem to think. However, the hardcore activists are blind to the evidence, and have managed to successfully deny the evidence for the 19 years that GM crops have been grown in the US.
 Pseudoscience regarding GM food
Attacks on GM food often utilize pseudoscience and straight out lying. The most prevalent claim is that all GMOs are harmful to health and cause a variety of illnesses: cancer, autism, reproductive problems, infant mortality, liver problems and many other things. These claims are totally false and on the same level as vaccine hysteria. The vast majority of supporting "research" comes from a small group of ideologically motivated cranks.
The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GM food. Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science, the U.S. National Academies of Science, and almost all national scientific bodies.
 More specific claims
Anti-GMO activists often say that GM seeds are infertile. This refers to Genetic Use Restriction Technology, dubbed "terminator seed", which renders the second generation seed of a plant infertile. This would prevent the farmer from saving seed, which currently is a requirement enforced using legal means. GURT was never commercialized and work on it was abandoned in 1999, largely due to public backlash instigated by the anti-GMO campaigners. Ironically, it would solve one of the few real problems with GM crops, namely the transfer of GM traits into wild relatives. It would also enable the safe use of GM plants to produce pharmaceutically active compounds.
There are also claims that Bt crops are responsible for bee deaths and colony collapse disorder (CCD), and that Bt cotton in India ruins small farmers and drives them to suicide. Both of these are false. Bt toxin is harmful to some Lepidoptera (butterflies / moths) and Coleoptera (beetles) which feed directly on the plant. It is not hamrful to bees, which are in the order Hymenoptera. A meta-analysis of 25 studies found that there is no detectable harm to bees arising from the use of Bt crops. Bt cotton in India is not a factor in farmer suicides, which started rising 5 years before its introduction.
 See also
- GMO A Go Go, an anti-GMO propaganda film
- National Research Council's 2004 statement on the safety of genetically engineered foods.
- Scientific Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, Green Facts
- Tomorrow's Table
- ↑ The genomes of nearly all important crops are heavily modified with respect to their wild ancestors, so using the term "genetically modified" to specifically label recombinant organisms is something of a misnomer.
- ↑ http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PapayaHawaiianRainbow.aspx
- ↑ International Rice Research Institute: C4 Rice
- ↑ John Innes Center: Major investment to persuade bacteria to help cereals self-fertilise
- ↑ BBC News: Blight-resistant GM potatoes field trial begins
- ↑ The Age: Disease-resistant banana plant developed
- ↑ http://www.goldenrice.org/
- ↑ Acrtic Apples
- ↑ http://www.innerself.com/Health/frankenfood.htm
- ↑ "Facts about Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds"
- ↑ Watrud, L.S. et al., Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 5, 2004, vol. 101, no. 40, pp. 14533-14538.
- ↑ "OSGATA v. Monsanto decision"
- ↑ "Federal Court (Canada) decision - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser"
- ↑ GURT overview.
- ↑ "Is Monsanto Going to Develop or Sell "Terminator" Seeds?", paragraph 3
- ↑ "HYBRID VARIETIES AND SAVING SEED"
- ↑ "Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods"
- ↑ "Studies for GENERA" (as of 5/27/13, there are exactly six hundred studies in this list)
- ↑ "SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS"
- ↑ Quote: 'The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.'
- ↑ "A decade of EU-funded GMO research"
- ↑ Prospect Magazine: The real GM food scandal
- ↑ "Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs"
- ↑ NaturalNews: Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early
- ↑ Institute of Responsible Technology: Are Genetically Engineered Foods Promoting Autism?
- ↑ Institute of Responsible Technology: Health risks of GMOs
- ↑ WHO: 20 questions on genetically modified foods
- ↑ ICSU report on GM food
- ↑ http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
- ↑ http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx
- ↑ http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html
- ↑ http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001415
- ↑ http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf