Editorial: GM Foods
What did you eat for lunch today? Chances are, it contained genetically modified (GM) foods, which are now part of almost all processed food items. The engineering of GM foods, involving the introduction of new genes into the existing ones in the organism, began in 1994 and is now a fairly routine process. Yet the general public remains wary of them, calling GM foods “playing with God” and “Frankenfood”. In a 2015 poll, a mere 37% of the public believed GM foods were safe to consume, despite 88% of scientists holding that same belief, and the fact that the vast majority of the dissenting 63% had probably consumed GM foods at some point anyway.
Such opposition is to be expected. The general public has always been suspicious of new technology - all the more so when said technology directly impacts them on a daily basis. Numerous concerns about the potential health effects of GM foods have been expressed over the years, from the plausible to the frivolous. Opponents have argued that GM foods contain allergens; that they cause liver problems, heart disease, and cancer; even the somewhat ridiculous assertion that GM foods could pass significant amounts of genetic material to humans.
Each one of these claims, and many others, have been refuted. A 2005 review of results from testing GM foods for allergens stated categorically that “no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions”. A 2014 review found that the performance of animals fed GM food was no different from those fed organic food. The concerns above of liver problems, heart disease, and cancer, have been dismissed as being within the normal range. And the minuscule risk of GM foods passing genes to humans has been found to be even lower than the background rate. Overall, a broad scientific consensus exists that GM foods are as safe to consume as conventional food.
The true advantage GM foods have over conventional foods is the vast range of beneficial traits that can be introduced. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on insecticidal and herbicidal genes, such as Bt and Roundup-Ready. While detractors are quick to cite the environmental problems that GM foods might pose, they fail to note that GM crops vastly decrease the negative environmental impact of traditional insecticides and herbicides. In one year (2006) alone, global pesticide use dropped by 286,000 tons, and the environmental impact of those pesticides was reduced by 15%. In yet another study, researchers found that ladybug populations near Bt cotton fields doubled, pesticide use was halved, and environmental benefits extended to nearby non-GM crops.
Indeed, because of the reduction in pests, GM crops are vastly more productive than their conventional counterparts. In 2010, GM crops increased farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion, with over half of those profits going to farmers in developing nations whose yields increased by 29%. Farmers who adopt GM crops make 69% more income than those who do not. The rise of GM foods has been hailed as a second Green Revolution for developing nations, and production levels have already risen significantly - new technological advances can only increase yields.
In fact, benefits to developing nations extend past economic ones. One GM food, golden rice, is engineered to produce 4-5 times more Vitamin A than regular rice. This would combat the serious health issue of Vitamin A deficiency, which causes 1-2 million deaths and half a million cases of permanent blindness annually, affecting over 190 million people in developing nations. Studies suggest that a modest cup of golden rice could supply 50% of the recommended daily allowance for Vitamin A, potentially solving a devastating health problem.
Despite these advantages, especially to developing nations, many in the developed world remain staunchly opposed to GM foods - which can have life-and-death consequences. In the midst of a famine in the early 2000s, African nations rejected shipments of GM foods on the recommendation of European nations and activist groups, undoubtedly leading to many deaths. In 2013, protesters in the Philippines destroyed a plot of golden rice - despite its potential to prevent Vitamin A deficiency, which affects over 1.7 million children under the age of five in that country. And despite the prevalence of GM foods in the developed world, public opinion is still very much anti-GM.
The cause of this is two-fold. Firstly, people instinctively distrust new technology, and all the more so when said technology involves fundamentally altering the nature of food. Given the lack of interest in and knowledge about science in the general public, perhaps this is understandable. On the other hand, there has been a sustained campaign in the media to discredit GM foods, often entirely ignoring the facts of the matter. Take, for example, this quote from Vandana Shiva, a vocal opponent of GM foods, on a gene known as the terminator: “The danger that the terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or the natural environment is a serious one. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms.” Note not only the exaggerated, fear-mongering language, but also that Shiva conveniently ignores the fact that the terminator gene was never actually developed.
Ultimately, the failure of the scientific world to inform the general public of the facts on GM foods has been a costly mistake. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods, despite the extra yields and profits they bring, despite their increased nutritional content that may solve problems like Vitamin A deficiency, despite the fact that GM foods could completely revolutionize agriculture in developing nations, the majority of the public opposes them on little more grounds than gut feeling. That is not to say there are not legitimate concerns about GM foods, like the lack of labeling or the shady tactics employed by corporations like Monsanto, but the promise of this new technology cannot be denied.
Let us hope that one day the public will take an objective look at the situation regarding GM foods, fix what little needs to be fixed, and finally fulfill the true potential of GM technology for global benefit. Until then - bon appetit.
