FOODS LABELED AS organic may not be produced from genetically modified organisms. A genetically modified organism is one whose genetic material has been altered by the addition of new DNA. This results in the creation of new combinations of genes which have not previously existed in nature. In agriculture, these techniques are typically utilized to increase plant resistance to pests and herbicides, not to inherently increase yields.
The majority of U.S. grown soybean, corn, and cotton crops are now genetically modified. Over one-half of the processed foods on our grocery shelves contain genetically modified organisms.
For millions of years plant breeding was dominated by natural selection processes that were relatively unaffected by humans. Approximately ten thousand years ago, our ancestors began changing from a society of hunter gatherers to an agriculturally based species. Grains, fruits, and vegetables were cultivated, and natural selection was altered in a relatively minor degree by human selection of plants for breeding based on desirable characteristics. This type of breeding was limited by natural barriers which do not allow different species to breed with each other. This resulted in relatively minor variations over a ten-thousand-year period of time.
A span of ten thousand years is a very small period of time when compared to the age of our Earth. However, this is quite large when compared to the previous two decades, which has brought an astounding number of new variations of living organisms, due to the intermingling of DNA from completely different species. These new combinations of DNA could never possibly occur naturally and are only made possible by laboratory manipulation.
UNPREDICTABLE OUTCOMES
One of the problems with genetic engineering is that it is very unpredictable. We simply cannot anticipate all of the possible problems that may arise – although many specific concerns have been raised.
Although the FDA has deemed genetically engineered (GE) food crops to be “substantially equivalent” to non-GE crops and therefore safe to eat, many scientists think that there have not been enough long term feeding trials to assess for possible health problems related to ingesting these new organisms. “Substantial equivalence” is also an imprecise and subjective term, and many crops that have been considered equivalent to their non-GMO counterparts do indeed manifest differences in nutritional profile, allergen levels, and insecticide residues.
There is also the potential for the evolution of new weeds, pests, bacteria, and viruses which may mutate in response to genetically modified organisms. Newly created plants could possibly create substances and pollens that are poisonous to beneficial soil microorganisms, insects, and bees. There is also now genetic pollution caused by wind, birds, and other pollinators that may bring genetically altered pollen to adjacent organic fields. These nearby fields often contain crops that have been naturally selected over thousands of years to be resistant to disease and weather-related vagaries. Unlike chemical pollution, there is no way to contain genetic pollution, as this type of pollution is an organism that can reproduce and mutate.
THE PESTICIDE TREADMILL
Many plants are genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides. Rather than having to physically remove or selectively spray weeds, the farmer can now spray an entire acreage; without fear of killing the soybean or corn crops. The most well-known and ubiquitous varieties are the “Roundup Ready” crops that are resistant to Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide.
Recently introduced, there are now also GMO crops that are engineered to be resistant to two different herbicides, as many weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate alone. Multiple chemicals (2,4-D and glyphosate) can now be sprayed over an entire field, killing only the weeds without killing the corn or soybean plants.
This begs the question: When two herbicides in combination are no longer effective in a decade or so, should a third be then added; and then another each decade after that? This is a perfect illustration of Robert Van der Bosch’s “pesticide treadmill” (more on this next time). At this rate, our grandchildren will be consuming a whole lot of herbicides on their food by the end of the century.
Using herbicide-tolerant crops often leads to the increased indiscriminate use of pesticides. This is an indirect, but very harmful consequence of allowing genetically modified food into the market. It is very disconcerting that the same companies that genetically engineer plants to be resistant to herbicides also manufacture and sell the herbicides that farmers now use in much greater amounts to kill their weeds.
It is true that herbicide use can sometimes increase crop yields; but mechanical and hand weeding techniques also increase yields – they just cost more money. Some people will make the argument that we need even mildly increased yields to provide food for the masses. However, the vast majority of fertile American Midwest farmland is not used to directly feed humankind; rather it is predominantly planted in corn to make biofuel; or to use for animal feed, which is an inefficient way of providing calories to humans.
Herbicides not only kill weeds, they also disrupt the normal soil microbiome. Soil is a living system. A sustainable food production model nourishes the soil, allowing it to do its job of supporting plant life. The current model damages the soil; and then keeps crops on life support by adding synthetic inputs.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques can substantially increase crop yields. These methods are often as simple as crop rotation, planting a diverse array of crops, or making use of cover crops. Woodland regions incorporated between fields are also encouraged, to help support birds and other predators of insects. Biological methods are often recommended, using predators and parasites of pests in a targeted way to suppress their populations.
Choosing the most pest resistant varieties grown in optimal environments, and using physical methods such as barriers, traps, and mowing are also essential measures of IPM. Few of these ideas are typically incorporated into the present business model of modern large-scale agricultural systems, which narrowly focuses on making large and immediate profits.
The really unfortunate part is that if IPM methods are employed, most herbicide use is not even necessary. Weeds can be controlled by machines or by hand, providing jobs for many; it just involves more easily identifiable costs. The real price of herbicide use includes many less immediately apparent costs, including monies spent paying for adverse human health and environmental impacts related to their use, as well as a loss of biodiversity that cannot be measured in dollars alone. The total true cost of herbicides dwarfs that of using physical weed removal methods.
MAKE YOUR OWN HERBICIDE
In addition to herbicide-tolerant genes, another gene that has been inserted into corn DNA is one that is derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This gene codes for the production of a toxin that kills insects. During its growth period, these new plants now manufacture their own toxin, and eating any part of the plant is therefore fatal to an insect. The use of Bt crops has been correlated with lower rates of exogenous insecticide application, as the plant produces its own toxin.
A study from Broderick, et al. found that the degree of mortality induced in some pest species by Bt toxin was dependent on the presence of bacteria located within the intestinal tract of the insect. In some (but not all) species Bt acted in concert with enteric gut bacteria to account for the final death of insect larvae. It is worth considering that Bt toxin could also possibly interact unfavorably with the human gut microbiome.
In addition, a study by Aris and Leblanc found Bt toxin in 93% of human maternal blood samples, and 80% of fetal blood samples – demonstrating that Bt toxin in food is indeed absorbed through the intestinal lining of humans. Also of note, Vendomois, et al. published a study that demonstrated liver and kidney toxicity to rats fed three different varieties of commercially available genetically modified maize for a period of ninety days.29
LABELING AND TRANSPARENCY
Agribusiness has decided against employing precautionary principles and a policy of transparency. In fact, many large biotech conglomerates are spending enormous sums of money to convince citizens to vote against GMO labeling of food products. Their stated reasons for doing so are dubious at best (e.g. it will cost the consumer more money if a couple extra words are added to a product label).
It is of course much more likely that these companies object to GMO labeling because they believe that profits could be threatened. Many countries already require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. This includes Australia, the European Union, and many other developed countries; but currently the U.S. and Canada do not have this requirement. Powerful lobbying groups have coerced our government officials to tell us that we do not need GMO labelling – because they will do our thinking for us.
Consumers should also be wary of any testing performed by the very companies that stand to greatly profit from their new inventions. There are policy-making government agency officials who review these corporate studies; however, some of these individuals float back and forth between private and public-sector employment in the agriculture industry – a practice that certainly adds to the already large and inappropriate corporate influence on governmental regulatory affairs.
There may be exceptions, but the current motives of many agribusiness conglomerates appear to be primarily profit driven, often cloaked in a façade of ending world hunger – which in reality is not typically due to low crop yields as much as it is the result of complicated geopolitical forces, inefficient land use and overpopulation.
Another concern is that agribusiness giant Monsanto does not allow farmers to save and replant seeds produced from plants that were grown from genetically altered seeds initially purchased from them. From a narrow business perspective this policy is understandable, as they have invested vast amount of money to develop and market these seeds, and they want to reap the rewards of their efforts. But from a more general perspective, the specter of a few large private industrial corporations controlling the world’s food supply is considered by many to be appalling and dangerous.
As there are so many uncertainties involved with genetically engineered food, and because the stakes are so high, it would surely seem quite reasonable to exercise caution. However, this is not our current course of action.
Next time: “THE BUG MAN”