Opinion: Rethinking GMOs by Noah Musto

      While the scientific consensus on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) tends to imply that they are safe for consumption and should be supported, I would be a little more skeptical about claims from Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. I respect Dr. Tyson and Mr. Nye just as much as the next guy, but I am also wary of GMOs--not that I don’t take value into scientific consensus (because I truly do), but because I think they overlook a few key points.

It is not clear whether or not GMOs are safe for consumption. Studies show that genetically modified organisms reduce the nutritional value of food. Moreover, a genetically modified organism “lowers nutritional value quality [more] than its traditional counterpart by making nutrients unavailable or indigestible to humans” (Genetically Modified Organisms). Many plants produce substances that can be toxic to humans. For instance, a plant is genetically engineered to become disease resistant by using a viral promoter called the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv). However, this viral promoter, after several tests, has been concluded to act as a toxin that is extremely poisonous to mammals. Not only is it poisonous, but this is also known to damage vital organs and even immune systems when tested (“Why We Need a Global Moratorium”). Scientists are concerned that if an exotic gene is introduced into a plant it will cause it to produce higher amounts of these toxins that will be dangerous to humans. Even potatoes “conventionally bred for increased disease resistance have produced higher levels of glycoalkaloids” (Genetically Modified Organisms). Glycoalkaloids are a poison that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, and headaches, (Glycoalkaloids). Moreover, another health risk caused by a GM crop is found in herbicide resistant soybeans. These soybeans contain fewer isoflavones, “an important phytoestrogen present in soybeans,” which can protect women from some forms of cancer (Alteri and Rosset). These soybeans put women at a higher risk of contracting a disease that kills, on average, nearly a half of a million people each year in the United States alone. But should we really worry about GM crops? Even though the multitude of biotechnology firms that produce genetically modified organisms claim they are one hundred percent safe, there is reason to be weary of their claim. Biotechnology companies like Monsanto said that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were "safe" and now, of course, we know otherwise. A report done by Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, compares the tactics used to convince the public of the safety of GMOs by companies like Monsanto, to the tactics used by the tobacco industry. Companies like Monsanto “are funding scientific studies, cultivating alliances and strategic partnerships with farmers, beekeepers, and agricultural organizations in order to bolster the legitimacy of their arguments” (Follow the Honey). Furthermore, these companies have the nerve to attack governments that try to regulate them. Three companies, Syngenta, Bayer, and the European Crop Protection Association, tried to lobby for the European Union not to ban neonicotinoids. If these companies had nothing to hide they would not be as afraid regulations as they are. Therefore, we should take these companies’ word with a grain of salt.
      We also should be wary of the health risks of GMOs because many of the studies attempting to prove their safety have been done on animals. That is problematic because a non-human study does not prove if a substance is harmful or not to humans. The Food and Drug Administration approved artificial sweeteners after studies done on animals proved them to be safe. Yet, afterwards “scientists were able to do epidemiological studies (also called observational studies) in humans. Several of these studies found that artificial sweeteners are linked with negative health effects” (Genetically-Modified Organisms Have not Been Proven Safe). We do not have sufficient studies on the effects of GMOs on humans to prove them to be safe.
      There are non-health factors that are more important to look at though. GMOs hurt the farm market. A few companies have an oligopoly on GMOs. Thus, if their use is encouraged small farmers would be hurt. These farmers need to farm in order to make ends meet. However, Monsanto’s gains have come at the cost of small farmers. Companies like Monsanto force the farmers using their patented organisms to sign a contract. One of the main provisions in these contracts prohibit farmers from saving their seeds or re-using them the next year. This restriction causes farmers to purchase the organisms from the company on an annual basis (Kruft). Re-using the seeds can be financially deadly for farmers, regardless of having a contract. In one instance, Monsanto sued a Canadian farmer for using their patented seeds even though the pollen had blown over from a neighboring field. The court ruled that the farmer must deliver any of his remaining seed supply to Monsanto and award them his profits and interest from the plants (Kruft). In this case, a farmer was penalized by an act of nature because it interfered with a patent. All of this doesn’t even scratch the surface of predatory practices by Monsanto.
There is a religious aspect to the GMO debate as well. Many religions including Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam forbid the consumption of food that is genetically modified. These individual religions each have their own reasons to reject this genetically modified food, however mainly they are prohibit the altering of God-given naturalness (“GMO or No”). These three religions include more than thirty-three percent of the world population that do not support the consumption of these GM crops, so these billions of people would refrain from breaking their religion to consume these crops. We would not be able to force these people away from worshiping their religion, especially since not eating GMOs harms nobody else in the process. Thus we would fail to feed these people if GMOs become the norm.
All in all, GMO production and consumption is a lot more complex than people like Dr. Tyson and Mr. Nye make it out to be. I would highly encourage one to question the science presented currently, as well I would like supporters of GMOs to investigate aspects other than health when talking about Genetically Modified Organisms. GMOs could allow our planet a great benefit; however, they may also come at a great cost.


For a list of Works Cited, click here.