GMOs May Be Safe
to Eat, But Some Are Still Bad for the Planet
For
years, one of the major arguments that has been made against genetically
engineered crops is the fear that, by tampering with a plant’s DNA, it
could potentially
cause health issues for
consumers. It’s an understandable worry, however, the scientific consensus now seems to be undeniable: Whatever faults GMO crops may have, they are safe for human consumption.
A
new, incredibly
comprehensive 400-page analysis from the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine argues very persuasively that the past two
decades of research have revealed
no increased ill effects in populations that have consumed GMOs.
And
it’s important to be clear about one thing: This is not simply
another industry study bankrolled by Monsanto or Dupont. Most of the 20 experts
involved in putting together this review are academics.
It
is, instead, the result of a review of more than 1,000 studies on the effects
of GMOs, testimony from more than 80 expert witnesses, and more than 700 public
comments. It’s basically a summary of everything the scientific community has
learned about GMOs over the past two decades.
While some of the researchers involved have served as consultants for bioengineering companies in the past, the fact that the report pulled data from thousands of different sources makes any claims of direct industry influence on the results implausible.
At most, environmental organizations have accused the authors of
this study of watering
down their
findings to avoid taking a firm stance one way or the other on the issue.
The
researchers compared disease reports from the U.S. since the ’90s with those
from Europe, where GM crops are not widely eaten, and found absolutely no
long-term pattern indicating an increase in disease coinciding with the
introduction of GM crops.
There was no demonstrable correlation between GMO
consumption the development of cancer, obesity, Type II diabetes, celiac
disease,
food allergies or autism.
At
a certain point, we need to accept that the
overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe to
eat, and insisting otherwise is no longer a reasonable objection
environmentalists and consumer advocates can aim at the industry.
Just
Because GMOs Are Safe to Eat, Doesn’t Mean They’re Vindicated
However,
the new report is not
unequivocally pro-GMO,
and just because the crops in question are safe to eat doesn’t mean there
aren’t good reasons to support mandatory labeling in food.
There are
still plenty
of reasons consumers
might want to avoid products that use this method in their production. For one
thing, there are plenty of us who find Monsanto’s
business practices unethical,
and would prefer not to support them. For another, there’s the potential
environmental impacts of GMO crops to consider.
One
thing the authors of the report have stressed, over and over, is the fact that
we should be evaluating GM crops on a case-by-case basis, rather than simply
writing off the entire method used to create these new breeds of plants.
While
the report found no direct link between GMOs and environmental damage, it also
noted that there is plenty of evidence of insects developing resistance to
crops which contain built-in pesticides, and that many weeds are rapidly
developing a resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.
That’s
a major agricultural problem: These crops were created with the intention of
requiring lighter applications of pesticides and herbicides, but farmers are
increasingly going to have to use larger amounts of more
toxic chemicals to
keep weeds and pests in check.
The
report doesn’t address the controversy over the
increased use of glyphosate or the fact that it’s recently been classed as
a probable
human carcinogen by
multiple government organizations.
This is actually one case where accusations
of the report “watering down” information are probably warranted, and it’s
disappointing that the authors couldn’t find room in a 400-page document to
discuss the issue.
All
that being said, pesticide resistance isn’t a problem unique to GM crops — it’s
a built-in feature of our industrialized
agricultural system.
But given that GM crops like Roundup Ready plants and BT corn aren’t actually
solving the problem they were originally created to address, it raises the
question: What advantage is there to growing these GM versions over
conventional crops?
In
the past, the industry has claimed that herbicide- and insect-resistant crops
have an overall increased yield when compared to conventional plants.
However,
the new report shows that not to be the case: In fact, it seems that GMOs
have failed
to increase American
farmers’ crop yields at all. Given this new information, it’s worth asking
whether these particular genetic modifications are necessary and which GM
crops, if any, have a legitimate place in our agricultural system.
Not
All GMOs Are Created Equal
As
much as the anti-GMO lobby hates to admit it, there are cases in which GM crops
are actually
a positive development for human health and agriculture.
While
Roundup Ready and BT crops appear not to be among them, by tarring all GMOs
with a broad brush, we risk stifling projects that could help
fight malnutrition in
poor countries and rejecting crops with an
improved ability to
resist devastating viruses and fungi that could potentially wipe out entire
harvests.
While these two applications are not the reason behind most genetic
engineering in the U.S. market, this is not research we should be discouraging
or trying to ban.
Scientist
and media personality Bill Nye made the astonishing
announcement about
a year ago that, after lengthy study and a personal visit to Monsanto’s
headquarters, he had changed his mind about GMOs and no longer broadly opposed
the industry.
While some
were suspicious that
he was being paid to endorse the biotech industry, Nye’s views on the subject
appear to be much more nuanced than simply cheering on Monsanto.
What
Nye has actually said is that he no longer believes that GMOs are inherently
bad, but that introducing any new species to the environment can
have unintended consequences: By creating vast monocultures,
we’re reducing
genetic diversity in
the environment and harming many plant and animal species.
While
many GM crops, in particular staple crops like corn and soy, are a major part
of this problem, we do ourselves a disservice by only pointing the blame at
biotech.
This is actually a much larger problem with the agriculture industry
in general, and the more time we spend focusing on GMOs as the villain, the
less effectively we’re going to be able to address the root cause.
What’s
really important is focusing on developing a more sustainable and eco-friendly
system of agriculture in general, not simply ridding our food supply of GMOs.
Purchasing organic foods and supporting GM labeling laws can still be part of
that effort, but it can’t be the only focus.
Many
anti-GMO organizations are understandably disappointed with the content of the
National Academies’ research for not vindicating their long-held beliefs about
GMOs — but instead of trying to deny the findings or invalidate them, we should
be using them to drive a new conversation about the dangers that industrial
agriculture poses to the environment and finding real solutions to mitigate
those problems where possible.