Scary Stories from the Interwebz: What is a GMO?

The Internet is a big, scary place. It contains a plethora of information on just about any available topic. That's the big. Unfortunately, there is very little regulation of the quality and accuracy of that information. That's the scary.

Like just about any other form of media, people have an overwhelming tendency to believe that everything they read on the Internet is true. Especially blog articles that use words like "studies," "research," and "scientists," and definitely when they discuss things like cancer and obesity and all of those other pervasive medical problems that are plaguing our generation.

I'd therefore like to start a new series affectionately titled Scary Stories from the Interwebz. I'll use this series to discuss hot topics that I come across at work and in my personal life that are largely misrepresented, and sometimes blatantly false. And I'll do my best to support my claims with evidence. Like, actual evidence. That I read. And understand (<-- that part is important!).

For our first Scary Story, let's talk about GMOs.

OMP and I were getting lunch today, and a nearby diner was telling his college-age sons about the dangers of GMOs.

"Yeah, it stands for 'Genetically Modified Orgasms.' I mean, ha-ha, 'ORGANISMS.' Yeah it's like, they take fruits and vegetables and animals and stuff and inject them with all sorts of chemicals and antibiotics. Montasanto is the name of the company that does a lot of it, and basically these chemicals are toxic and can cause all sorts of problems like cancer."



*FACE PALM*

I understand that the idea of dudes in labcoats injecting "TOXIC CHEMICALS" into fruits and veggies can be rather terrifying, but why don't we take a few minutes to discuss what a "Genetically Modified Orgasm Organism" actually is.

Genetic Modification (formerly known as selective breeding), goes back to the early days of farming. Selective breeding is the process by which farmers (or scientists, or people who are bored or whatever)

[breed] organisms with desirable traits in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits. 

Most of the animal and plant products that we consume today are the result of selective breeding. In fact, many of the products available today wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for selective breeding. Corn is a great example. Michael Polland's The Omnivore's Dilemma tells an amazing story about the history of corn (and also why the Corn industry is a little terrifying). You can also read all about the history of corn here. 

Image from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

As time goes on and technology improves, we're getting a little better at this this whole selective breeding thing. Now instead of providing a candlelight dinner and mood music to our various livestock, we can perform artificial insemination and DNA modification.

A 2011 literature review published in Genetics discusses how the genetic engineering of crops differs from traditional selective breeding

Genetic engineering differs from conventional methods of genetic modification in two major ways: (1) genetic engineering introduces one or a few well-characterized genes into a plant species and (2) genetic engineering can introduce genes from any species into a plant. In contrast, most conventional methods of genetic modification used to create new varieties (e.g., artificial selection, forced interspecific transfer, random mutagenesis, marker-assisted selection, and grafting of two species, etc.) introduce many uncharacterized genes into the same species. Conventional modification can in some cases transfer genes between species, such as wheat and rye or barley and rye (Ronald, P., 2011)

Basically, we can do it in a lab. Oh, and we're much, much better at it.

So what's the big deal? Well, it could be nothing.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Acad-
emy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques (Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods, 2012).

Like any new technology, GMO's have been subjected to absurd amounts of safety monitoring and scrutiny. If you have a few weeks of free time, you might want to read A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research put forth by the European Commission. I'll be honest, I just skimmed it. But suffice it to say that there's been a fair amount of investigation, and the general consensus is that GMOs are filling an important need without introducing any significant risks.

Then why did my favorite soccer-mom blog tell me that GMOs are scary?

Despite the fact that the process of genetic engineering is not all that scary, the purpose of all this modification is worthy of some reflection. Genetic engineering can accomplish some amazing things. It can increase the protein and iron content of rice so that poor communities can afford nutritionally- and calorically-dense foods. It can create stalks of corn that stand up straighter, increasing the yield and the health of the plant. Actually, for the most part genetic engineering is pretty amazing, and has the potential to solve a lot of the world's hunger problems.

But, like any technology, it can be dangerous when taken into the wrong hands. For example, genetic modification can also make it so that plants can survive an offensive onslaught of herbicides and pesticides, and somehow manage to not die. 

ZOMG CHEMICALS.

Image from http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/

I'll have to save my rant on how much I hate the word "chemicals" for another day. In short, "chemicals," aka man-made substances, are not inherently bad. That being said, if there's a substance potent enough to kill unwanted plants and animals, it's probably worth a second look. 

In addition to the bazillions of soccer-mom blogs, there's plenty of actual research that indicates a statistically significant correlation between certain herbicides/pesticides and adverse health outcomes. An herbicide known as Roundup (manufactured by the evil Montasanto company) has drawn considerable criticism (Richard, S., et al., 2005).

Does this mean that your salad is coming with a side of Roundup? Maybe. Unfortunately, that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true dangers of herbicides and pesticides. A short list of other concerns:

1. Herbicide resistance
2. Endangerment of species that are not "Roundup Ready"
3. Seed contamination
4. Endangerment of "non-targeted" species of insects and mammals (think: honeybees, deer, etc.)
5. Contamination of groundwater and endangerment of aquatic flora/fauna
6. Possible endangerment of the local human community

 There are too many sources to list, but you can start with the following:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac991359c

Or just try wikipedia

In short, you shouldn't be worried THAT genes are being modified. You should be worried about WHICH genes are being modified. And unfortunately, grocery stores have yet to advertise that above their produce bins.

So what's a concerned consumer to do?

Honestly, don't worry about the whole GMO thing. It's over your head. Frankly, it's over my head. All you need to worry about is supporting sustainable agriculture. When possible, buy organic. Better yet, buy local AND organic. Sure those organically- and locally-grown apples might have been genetically modified at some point, maybe to make the trees grow taller or to make the apples a prettier color. But you can rest assured that you're not getting a healthy dose of Roundup in your fruit salad. More importantly, you're supporting an organization that, at least in some way, has examined how its growing practices impact both the environment and the people who consume its products. Win-win.

That concludes this week's Scary Story from the Interwebz. Stay tuned for an actual update on Babykirk. I promise I'll get to it eventually.