The GMO Question

“Seedy Business,” (PDF), a report released earlier this year by U.S. Right To Know, a non-profit organization that counters food industry disinformation, is an eye-opener. It’s introduction opens with this:

“Since 2012, the agrichemical and food industries have mounted a complex, multifaceted public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaign in the United States, costing more than $100 million, to defend genetically engineered food and crops and the pesticides that accompany them.” The report lists 15 things that “big food is hiding with its slick PR campaign on GMOs.” Maybe the most controversial of these: “GMO science is for sale.” Others can be used to counter your well-meaning friends who’ve heard the media say that the FDA has determined these foods are safe: The FDA does not test whether GMOs are safe. It merely reviews information submitted by the agrichemical companies.

  Planet Natural

There is no consensus in the science. A comprehensive review of peer-reviewed GMO animal feeding studies found roughly an equal number of research groups raising concerns about genetically engineered foods and those suggesting GMOs were as safe and nutritious as conventional foods. The review also found that most studies finding GMOs foods the same as conventional foods were performed by biotechnology companies or their associates.

There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential health effects of GMO food on human health. With no epidemiological studies, claims that “trillions of GMO meals” have been eaten with no ill effects have no scientific basis. Without such studies, which have been used to determine the effects of factors from fats to smoking, it is not possible to know whether GMOs are causing harm such as increases in known diseases, especially over the long term.

GMO studies are frequently mischaracterized as showing safety. For example, the EU Research Project, which has been internationally cited as providing evidence of GMO safety, was not designed to test safety and provides no reliable evidence of safety. Another example is the false claim that “hundreds of studies” listed on the biotechnology website Biofortified demonstrate GMO safety; in fact, many of the studies on that list do not address safety concerns at all, and several of the studies raise serious concerns.

International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GMO foods and crops. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and UN’s Codex Alimentarius share a precautionary approach to GMO crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.

Claims that government and scientific organizations endorse safety are often exaggerated or inaccurate. For example, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing. A report by the British Medical Association concluded that “many unanswered questions remain” about the long-term effects of GMOs on human health and the environment, and that “safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.” Moreoever, the positions of some prominent scientific organizations have been misrepresented or opposed by members, further highlighting the lack of consensus among scientists.

  Right to Know

My own objection to GMO food is not so much that it is unsafe to eat. I don’t know that it is or isn’t. Long-term studies have not yet been possible. My objection encompasses that fact and the economics.

We know from many instances of attempts to thwart nature to our advantage, such as importing exotic plants and animals for pest control, and from accidental importation of pests, that introducing a foreign actor into an ecosystem whose components have evolved together for millennia disrupts the system and produces unforeseen and often disastrous results. (Kudzu in Missouri anyone?) What happens next is a rash of chemical attempts to rebalance. The winners in this game are the chemical companies, not the consumers. The consumers MAY not be any less healthy for eating GMO foods, but their wallets are certainly lighter, and their ecosystem full of chemicals that may be harmful to them directly and impossible to predict for the future.

If we need more food and can’t get it without GMOs (which I am not stipulating), why not just manufacture chemical food and leave the environment to take care of itself as it has done since the beginning of time?

Or, hey, my favorite solution: Soylent Green.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.