2016

The Underwhelming
Evidence of the Anti-
GMO Movement
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

Abstract

Ever since the revolution of technology people have been looking for ways to be

innovative. Biotechnology is one of the fields that has developed at an incredible fast pace. With

the first transgenic plant that was commercialized in the early nineties, genetically engineered

crops (GMOs) are now pretty common. However, with the increasing influence that media and

GMO detractors exercise upon consumers, consumers are getting the wrong information. This

paper addresses a few common opposite arguments against GMOs and refutes them with

scientific evidence. In fact, transgenic crops have the potential to help with world hunger, reduce

agricultural waste, and facilitate access to vitamin enriched food. Indeed GMOs are just as

beneficial to farmers as they are for families and individuals.

1
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

The Origin of GMOs

In 1946 scientists determined that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the chemical contained

in the cell that carries genetic information, could be transferred between organisms (Clive, 2012).

Biotechnology creates products using living organisms. Biotechnological discoveries are useful

in agriculture, manufacturing, and investigation fields. It wasnt until 1983 that the first

genetically modified plant was created. It was an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. Since then

Genetically Modified Organisms, Transgenic, Genetically Engineered are a few terms to

refer to genetically engineered products. China became a pioneer in being the first country to put

on the market a transgenic crop. By 1994 the first transgenic tomato Flavr Savr Tomato was

approved to be put on the market by the Food and Drug Admisnitration (FDA). Nowadays the

GMO market has expanded considerably and new methods of artificial gene insertion have been

developed. In recent years people have been bombarded with statements that set people against

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs.) Food products that are labeled non-GMO,

Certified GMO-free and even Organic often seem to make people think they are choosing

the healthiest choice and consequently, they think that anything that contains GMOs is

unhealthy. It is easy to find articles and advertising that warn against the consumption of

biofortified or genetically engineered food. The objections are many, but among them is that

people and sometimes companies claim that GMOs represent a health risk, increase the use of

pesticides and are les nutritious than organic food . However, most of these articles and

marketing approaches often offer information without citing reputable sources based on

scientific data.

2
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

GM crops and Health Risks

There is a marked gap between what people believe regarding health risks related to GMOs

and what research actually presents. For instance, Galyna Sidyelyeva (2010), a researcher from

the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, makes some observations about her interaction with a

woman that upon reading a newspaper article regarding GMOs expressed her concern saying,

See, they use genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food! Those genes are poisonous!

Eating transgenic food will kill you! Sidyelyeva, argues that genetically engineered plants are

still regarded as harmful in contrast to genetically engineered microorganisms which have gained

positive views. Some detractors are concerned that GMOS can be harmful in the following

aspects: genetically engineered food genes inserted in the DNA of plants can be toxic or cause

allergies, and their consumption could decrease the effectiveness of therapeutic antibiotics.

The claim that GMOs are poisonous or toxic to our bodies is a statement that could be made

about non-GMO food that we normally wouldnt consider poisonous. Sidyelyeva provides a

great example with potatoes:

We eat tubers, which are usually referred to as potatoes, even though the potato

fruitslittle green berriesare not edible and are actually poisonous, as they contain

glycoalkaloid solanine. The genes responsible for solanine biosynthesis are present in the

whole plant, including tubers. Does this prevent us from eating potatoes? Not at all. The

concentration of solanine in tubers is very low and does not pose a health risk.

This example shows that even food that we consider completely harmless could be

considered toxic. Toxic or not, something that is usually overlooked is that GM crops are usually

tested. The amount of transgenic components and the possible effects in humans are identified

3
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

and evaluated before the product even reaches the public. If health concerns appear, any

allergens would be analyzed and tested (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013.) If accurate allergen

information is presented and with regulated biotechnological procedures, people can feel more

secure about GMO consumption.

Another claim against GMOs is that it can decrease the effectiveness of therapeutic

antibiotics. When plants are being genetically modified, the insertion of new genes can be

unsuccessful at times. To be able to determine the cells that were effectively modified, a marker

gene is implemented. Scientists use antibiotic resistance marker genes (ABR genes), which are

cells that are not affected by the corresponding antibiotic to establish if the gene transfer was

successful. This is the only purpose of the ABR gene. However, this gene remains in the plants

genetic information and removing it is nearly impossible. Some Anti-GMO supporters believe

that these antibiotic resistance genes can be transferred to humans and make us immune to

antibiotics. In spite of this, it has been established that the risk of horizontal gene transfer from

the plant to microorganisms is extremely low and that consequences would be minimal even if

the transfers were to occur (Barrows, Sexton, & Zilberman, 2014). As different organisms the

chances of these genes transferring are very low. Genetically engineered crops are unlikely to

present a health risk for consumers thats why its important to provide the most accurate

information so that people can understand the food process and how it affects us.

Conversely, genetically engineered crops can create a solution for diseases. Scientists have

been working for decades on not only increasing the yield of crops but also to increase their

nutritional value. For instance, folate biofortification in grains could help to reduce folate

deficiency. Folate deficiency can cause megaloblastic anemia, birth defects [neural tube defects

(NTD)], and increased risks for cardiovascular disease and certain [types of] cancer. (Bekaert et

4
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

al., 2008). Usually, folate deficiency is stabilized with folate supplementation (vitamin pills).

However, foliate deficiency is a great problem mainly present in developing countries where

access to vitamin supplements is costly or remote. In these countries, grains like maize and rice

are usually a staple and become perfect candidates for folate biofortification. Using a folate-

enriched staple crop could help developing countries or even ease the consumption of hard-to-

absorb nutrients. Instead of having harmful effects on human health, GM crops have the capacity

to facilitate nutrition and improve health. Of course, any genetically modified new crop is

expected to go through rigorous tests to ensure the publics safety.

Pesticides and GM crops

Another important concern about GM crops is associated with insect-resistant and herbicide-

tolerant traits in these crops and their effects. One of these concerns has to do with the

development of the so-called superweeds (weeds that have evolved and become resistant to

herbicide). Also anti-GMO supporters state that there are other methods to combat pests and

weeds. Traditional mixed farms, agrobiodiversity development and better agricultural practices

are often proposed to solve pest problems instead of using GM technology. These methods are

viable, though in comparison to biotechnological approaches, it is worth taking in consideration

several aspects that affect its effectiveness.

The concern regarding superweeds (a more correct term is herbicide resistant weeds or HR

weeds) is that with the use of herbicide-tolerant crops, eventually weeds become herbicide

resistant as well. While it is true that continual use of herbicide produces genetic resistance from

weeds too, what many biotechnology critics fail to see is that HR weeds were an existing issue

already, even before the introduction of GM crops. Weed resistance is a matter of natural

selection. It is known that within time, nature evolves as needed to fulfill its basic functions of

5
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

survival. With constant use of the same type of pesticide, weeds change and become resistant to

it. However, this is an independent process from the type of crop, or even the type of pesticide, it

is a matter of a natural process. An example is RoundUp (glyphosate), a highly scrutinized

herbicide that has been allegedly associated with the increase of herbicide-tolerant weeds cases.

Despite the assertions, RoundUp (RR) has demonstrated to actually lower the number of cases of

resistant weeds per year from 13.1 cases of HR weeds before 1996 (the first year with RR

crops) to 11.4 cases since (Brazeau, 2014). Since the problem has to do with the application and

not the methods or types of crop, some solutions for HR weeds could be herbicide rotation, crop

rotation and limited periods of application.

Another concern anti-GMO supporters have is that instead of using GM crops, agricultural

biodiversity can also control pests without using biotechnological approaches. Agricultural

biodiversity includes methods that help balance and maintain the stability of wildlife and the

environment with farming practices. Mixed farming is a system that employs methods like

simultaneous crop and livestock raising, crop rotation and biologic pesticides. While this system

proves its effectiveness, the implementation of these techniques has some limitations. Some of

these limitations are that farmers have to be knowledgeable not only of the crop control and care

but of livestock as well. An oversight in these matters can shift sustainability and affect the

surrounding environment. Mixed farming can also be challenging when it comes to resources.

Expanding farming to other areas requires more time, more land and labor to prosper.

On the other hand, biotechnology offers insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops that are

cost-effective in contrast to standard farming. GM crops have proven to not only increase crop

yield but also reduce pesticide use. Herbicide-tolerant crops are genetically modified so that

herbicide applications only affects weeds and plants can withstand it without being affected.

6
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

Insect resistant crops are modified with toxins such as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) a bacteria

which is toxic to common agricultural pests, such as the European corn borer, but harmless to

humans and relatively environmentally benign (Barrows et al., 2014). The implementation of

these types of GM seeds can be very profitable, although the initial cost of acquiring GM seeds

can be higher than those of non-GM seeds. However, it is important to understand that

farmers will only use improved seeds at a higher price if they get higher profits as a result

(Journal of International Affairs, 2014). The change to GM seeds is more beneficial for the

environment but also to farmers economy. We could infer that this is one of the reason why GM

crops implementation has grown exponentially.

Benefits of Herbicide-Tolerant and Insect-Resistant Crops

The benefits and profits of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops are related to the

quantity of pesticide use, the farming methods and sources used to implement them and the costs

to employ them. While using herbicide-tolerant crops might seem unfavorable, mainly because

they increase pesticide use and people often refuse to consume products that have been treated

with pesticides, herbicide-tolerant seeds allow the use of less aggressive herbicides, herbicides

that are less toxic, more biodegradable and less prone to leaching. Along with the reduction of

chemical effects, herbicide-tolerant crops reduce tilling procedures. Tilling is a method that

prepares soil and helps controlling weeds, though tilling causes erosion and chemical runoff that

in turn cause the soil to lose nutrients. (Barrows et al., 2014) Similarly, insect-resistant crops

provide benefits like higher yields and reduce pesticide treatment. In a meta-analysis performed

in 2014, GM crop and non-GM crop studies were analyzed and the difference in percentages

were represented. In the following figure the X line represents non-GMO crops and the bars that

stretch towards the Y axis represent the increase and decrease of indicators compared with GMO

7
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

values given in percentages. Even though production costs didnt show a significant decrease, an

increase of nearly 22% can be seen for yield; this rise mainly due to more efficient farming,

improved pest control and consequently less damage. A noticeable reduction of pesticide use and

cost reaching almost 40% and an increase of farmer profit almost reaching 70% (Klmper &

Qaim, 2014).

Impacts of GM crop adoption.

Figure 1. Impacts of GM crop adoption. Average percentage differences between GM and non-GM crops are shown. Results
refer to all GM crops, including herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant traits.

Thus it is shown that herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops provide environmental and

profitable benefits for agricultural development. As stated previously, farmers will only consider

the issue if it proves profitable for them. Figure 1 shows profit of almost 70% with less pesticide

and higher yield. Effectively, GM crops have set new standards for the agricultural field. These

methods are less demanding on farmers resources and more productive than methods like mixed

farming. While mixed farming is in fact effective in terms of pest control, the costs for a single

farmer to expand resources, invest more time and hire more laborers is higher than implementing

GM seeds with a higher price, and GM seeds increase the profit.

8
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

GM foods and Nutrition

An additional misconception that people often have about GM crops is that genetically

engineered food is often less nutritious than organic options. With the massive influence of

media and advertising, and the constant labeling of food, organic food appears to be the

healthiest choice. In recent years a trend has developed of being healthier and fitter, which is

a beneficial movement. However, there seems to be an irrational fear to things that are not

natural and therefore they must be bad. We are constantly surrounded by comments like If I

cant pronounce it, I dont eat it which is an exaggeration and a misguided statement. Most

things that we consume, even fruits or vegetables are composed of chemicals. Even water,

can sound dangerous according to those standards. As an example we could take the

dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) hoax. Dihydrogen monoxide is just another chemical name

for water. The DHMO hoax became popular when 14-year-old high school student Nathan

Zohner collected anti-DHMO petitions for a science project about gullibility. Zohner stated

that he was gathering petitions to ban DHMO. He listed some hazards like the fact that

DHMO may cause severe burns, has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer

patients and it is the main component in acid rain. Zohner gathered enough petitions to ban

the chemical, but he also garnered media attention as well (Kruszelnicki , 2006). This hoax

has been replicated several times to test the publics gullibility on unknown topics. While this

experiment can be somewhat misleading it proves that natural components can be perceived

as dangerous if people are misinformed or unaware of scientific terms. Therefore, not

everything that sounds chemical is inherently bad, one must get the appropriate information

to make an educated choice.

9
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

Some people argue that organic food contains all necessary nutrients naturally, but often

they dont take in account the way our bodies absorbs those nutrients and how relatively easy

or difficult it can be for some people to gain access or afford food with significant nutritional

values. When asked about GM foods, Brendan McMahon, a clinical nurse specialist in the

East Midlands, answered: Have you noticed how we now have to pay premium prices for

the simple, unadulterated food that previous generations could take for granted?... Nature

creates food with all the ingredients we need for health. If food was produced for need, rather

than profit, the food industry would not be the poisonous obscenity that it is (Flatt, Hehr,

McMahon, & Szczepanska, 2008). While it is true that nature produces vital nutrients

naturally, in many instances the amount of nutrients present in organic food do not meet the

required intake target and enhancing those nutrients in a natural way takes significantly more

time and it is less accurate than modifying the plant genetically. Detractors often dont see

this as an issue, but when other groups are considered, especially people living in poor

conditions, time and accuracy can solve nutrition problems of a significant magnitude.

Developing countries should be taken in account when judging the effectivity of biotech

crops. Biotechnological crops are an effective way to decrease hunger in developing

countries. The number of undernourished people around the world ascends to 795 million of

which 14.7 live in developed regions and an unsettling 779.9 live in developing regions

(FAO, 2015). That means than less than 2% of undernourished people live in developing

countries, where GM crops can actually make an enormous difference. People living in

developing countries dont usually the have the means to access vitamin supplements, and

even if they did, many naturally occurring vitamins dont have the necessary amount of

nutrients to satisfy their daily dietary needs. Another obstacle for developing countries is that

10
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

the local climate can be extreme at times and that could lead to crop losses. GM crops offer a

solution to these problems. The biofortification of food staples in that specific region allows

easier access for public consumption and the modification of genes so that crops are climate

resistant protects them from extreme climate. GM food crops with improved attributes, such

as higher iron content or larger amounts of folate can supply enough levels of these nutrients

that can change the deficient diet of people in developing regions (Hefferon, 2015). Thus, it

becomes evident that GM crops can change lives for countries with scarce resources.

With the possibility of generating more nutritious food at a lower cost, it is easy to see

why biotechnology keeps advancing at a steady rate despite all the opposition and radical

movements. Biofortified food can provide better alternatives to farmers or families of low

income, or even worse, people that live in areas where weather and living conditions present

a threat against self-reliance.

Conclusion

Genetically engineered foods have been proven to effectively reduce pesticide use,

increase farmer profit, and increase the efficiency of the farming process. GM crops also have

the ability to combat world hunger, nutritional deficiencies, and decrease dangerous chemical

runoff that comes from farming. Arguments against GM crops have slowed their progression in

todays society, but evidence supporting those arguments has been scarce. Proper representation

and explanation of the science behind GM crops will allow people to hear and understand both

sides of this argument, and make an educated decision that will affect their consumer choices.

Although other food options should always be available, the irrational fear of GM crops should

not be the deciding factor in consumer choices in todays food market.

11
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

References

Barrows, G., Sexton, S., & Zilberman, D. (2014). Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and

Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops . Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 99-120.

Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public

concernsa review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035-1046.

Brazeau, M. (2014). 'Superweeds' confirm 'failure' of GMOs...or maybe not-Narrative misleads,

avoids real solutions | Genetic Literacy Project. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/01/superweeds-confirm-failure-of-gmos-or-

maybe-not-narrative-misleads-avoids-real-solutions/

Bekaert, S., Storozhenko, S., Mehrshahi, P., Bennett, M. J., Lambert, W., Gregory, J. F., . . .

Hanson, A. D. (2008). Folate biofortification in food plants. Trends in Plant Science, 13(1), 28-

35. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.11.001

Clive, J. (2012). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012.ISAAA Brief, 44.

Flatt, S., Hehr, B., McMahon, B., & Szczepanska, S. (2008). Crunch time for gm food. Nursing

Standard, 22(23), 28-29.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2015). The state of food

insecurity in the world. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking stock of uneven

progress.

Gmos: A solution or a problem? (2014). Journal of International Affairs, 67(2), 131-139.

Hefferon, K. L. (2015). Nutritionally enhanced food crops; progress and

perspectives. International journal of molecular sciences, 16(2), 3895-3914.

12
 The Underwhelming Evidence of the Anti-GMO Movement

Klmper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops.

Plos One, 9(11), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Kruszelnicki, K. S. (2006, May 17). Mysterious Killer Chemical. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/05/17/1631494.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinsci

ence

Sidyelyeva, G. (2010). The GMOs we love to hate. Einstein Journal of Biology & Medicine,

25/26, 49-53.

13