In May, Island Leaf Commodities delved into a brief history of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We established that GMO crop development began due to scientists' DNA discovery and subsequent development of a DNA-manipulating skill set known as genetics.
Then, we described some late-20th century trail-blazing gene-tech companies' groundbreaking achievements that fundamentally altered modern science, paving the way for widespread GMO crop development and use. Finally, we retold the first GMO product's story: that of the Flavr Savr, a GMO tomato which decomposed more slowly and retained a higher-quality taste. Ultimately, the research and development that led to the Flavr Savr's creation became a facsimile for all GMO foods: utilize genetic manipulation to outsmart nature and create more products for human consumption.
Notably, we briefly illustrated some controversial aspects inherent in GMO crops. We then listed several countries that have banned GMO crop cultivation. Indeed, both GMO crop cultivation and consumption form the GMO Controversy's crux. However, there is an important point. Governments would not allow GMO cultivation or the importation of GMO crops if the latter and former had no benefit. The GMO crop risk-benefit paradox thus deserves further investigation.
What risks are associated with GMO crop cultivation? Are some GMO crops more harmful to the environment than others? Are some GMO crops not harmful at all? Is there potential for GMO crops to solve problems caused by disease and climate change? Below, we'll dive into the arguments for and against GMO crops.
GMO Risks, Concerns, and Rebuttals
First, we'll cover some risks posed by GMO food. Some groups allege multitudinous risks associated with GMO crop consumption. Some claims assert that GMO food can change human DNA or cause cancer. However, a legion of scientific studies, coupled with the fact that people and livestock have consumed GMO crops for over 40 years, nullifies most of these claims. Unfortunately, GMO crops aren't 100% without risk, and we've determined a few valid points of contention against GMO crops.
Allergic Reactions
One valid concern GMO food opponents emphasize is an allergic reaction possibly brought on by the organism that modifies the food being consumed. How exactly would this work? Let's say scientists use DNA from a peanut plant to alter an oft-consumed crop like corn. Although a paucity of people deathly allergic to peanuts exists, applying peanut genetic material to such a ubiquitously consumed crop could devastate these people. If the peanut-modified corn expresses any peanut protein or gene, people allergic to peanuts could unknowingly consume incredibly toxic food.
Indeed, inadvertently exposing susceptible people to life-threatening allergens is a frightening prospect. Fortunately, scientists in both the public and private sectors agree and have developed a protocol for this scenario. For example, in 1995, scientists demonstrated that soybeans modified with Brazil nut genetic material transferred Brazil nut allergens into the soybeans. Thus, people allergic to Brazil nuts would have the same reaction to the Brazil-nut-gene modified soybeans as to Brazil nuts. Subsequent tests and experiments followed, as outlined in a National Institute of Health (NIH) study.
Luckily, scientists conducted allergen-confirming tests before the crops hit the market, and subsequently banned them. This is because the conclusions reached from studies like the one mentioned above compelled regulatory agencies, like the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), to include allergen screening in the GM Food approval process.
The way scientists and the FDA deal with threats originating from problematic genetic material for modification on a widely-consumed crop like corn or soybeans, demonstrates a clear understanding that hazards exist when dealing with genetic alterations. For the 40 years of GMO technology's existence, scientists and government organizations have continually built and maintained safeguards. These safeguards result from exercising an effective vigilance grounded in the scientific method. Scientists and government organizations must continue to maintain and improve their screening methodology.
The Glyphosate Saga
While scientists and regulatory bodies can control GMO foods' intrinsic threats like allergens, a different and highly confounding issue hangs over our heads. That threat is environmental harm wrought not by GMO crops but by second-order effects.
In terms of protection against natural impediments to crop growth, GMO technology is a double-edged sword. On one side, geneticists have successfully created immune-to-insect crops, which we'll discuss in further detail below. However, scientists cannot yet prevent ravenous weed infestation. Weeds compete with crops for soil nutrients and growth space.
In the 1980s, however, scientists at the agricultural materials company Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) invented a highly effective weed killer called glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup. Because glyphosate is a highly effective plant killer, Monsanto scientists genetically engineered several crops to be 100% immune to it. Glyphosate-immune crops can withstand a torrential downpour of glyphosate, pushing farmers and agricultural professionals to apply copious volumes of glyphosate to their crops liberally. Unfortunately, glyphosate's benefits are not without costs.
Even slight exposure to glyphosate can cause sickness—that's why Monsanto advises people spraying it always to wear protective gear and wash their hands afterward. But unfortunately, protective gear and hand-washing might not serve as an effective protective measure.
Although the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) insists that low doses of glyphosate are safe for human consumption, many scientists object. Those opposed to the EPA's position include the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In 2015, the group contended that glyphosate was a probable carcinogenic. This accusation was the first of a few major forthcoming charges against glyphosate.
Four years later, in 2019, a University of Washington meta-analysis confirmed the IARC's concerns. The study concluded that glyphosate exposure does indeed increase the chances of developing certain cancer types. However, in 2020, contrary to the University of Washington's damming findings against glyphosate, the EPA reaffirmed its statements about glyphosate's innocuousness.
A multitude of lawsuits, a supreme court decision, and a federal circuit court order, all occurring between 2020 and 2022, undermined the EPA's 2020 reaffirmation and further fueled the fight against glyphosate.
In mid-2022, Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, finds itself in many legal battles. First, Bayer is contending with those claiming glyphosate damaged their health. Bayer has already paid damages in the tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Bayer seems prepared to write even more checks, as it has set aside $10 billion for further litigation. For the record, Bayer faces over 125,000 lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming glyphosate causes cancer.
But it's not just those claiming glyphosate-caused harm who are pursuing legal recourse against Bayer. Bayer's German shareholders are also suing the company on grounds that Bayer caused them financial harm. These disgruntled investors contend that Bayer did not conduct proper due diligence about the financial risks that acquiring Monsanto (the inventor of glyphosate) would expose Bayer to when they purchased Monsanto in 2018.
US courts have not acted in Bayer's favor either. On June 17th, 2022, less than two weeks before the publishing of this blog, a Federal Circuit Court issued an order to the EPA, requiring it to re-examine its standing about glyphosate's safety. Then, one week later, on June 22nd, 2022, the US Supreme Court further tightened the chokehold around Bayer's neck when it rejected Bayer's request to throw out all lawsuits pertaining to the glyphosate issue.
All of these recent developments pose a lethal threat (which may be for the better) to glyphosate's future. However, we stress that many of these issues stem not from GMO crops themselves but from second-order effects. Glyphosate-resistant crops' complete immunity allows for highly liberal use of the stuff. Unfortunately, vast parts of the population (especially in the US) have been exposed to glyphosate.
We could continue to write about the risks that glyphosate poses to the environment and other species, as well as glyphosate immunity that some target weeds have developed due to overexposure. However, our primary purpose is to drive home the idea that policymakers, farmers, and other agricultural professionals must foresee, to a reasonable extent, possible second-order effects GMO crops may have on the environment, animals, and humans. No scientific benefit is without risk.
With a few GMO crop risks explained, we now want to move on to some of the benefits that GMO crops can offer.
The GMO Advantage
When properly examined and approved by several government agencies, some GMO crops can serve as tools to better humanity. Not only do GMO solutions for humanity's problems sit in the pipeline, but a few already exist on the market.
Pest-Insect Targeted GMO Crops
A recent meta-analysis by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) highlights a shining example of GMO success. Scientists analyzed over 200 studies, each containing thousands of experiments, about the effects of Bt. corn (named for the bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis, whose genetic material modifies the corn) on non-target insects. Bt. corn is genetically modified to produce toxins that kill specific insects, such as corn-devouring wasps. This study, proclaimed by many as a complete and valid GMO plant meta-analysis, concluded that Bt. corn has no adverse effects on non-target insects like pollinators and ladybugs. This meta-analysis resulted in a resounding success for GMO crops.
Bt. corn's success at keeping non-target insects safe illustrates a significant GMO benefit. By engineering crops to protect themselves against crop-destroying pests, farmers will not have to rely on pesticides. Of course, the possibility exists that target insects develop immunity to the plant's protective toxin, but this should not discourage the use and development of GMO crops. Furthermore, genetic scientists should take a page from the Bt. corn developers' playbook and attempt to develop crops that can protect an area against weeds. Such an innovation could reduce glyphosate and other pesticide usage.
Bacillus thuringiensis: Not Just for Corn
Recognizing the widespread applicability of Bacillus thuringiensis, Michigan State University scientists working in a program called Feed the Future, which aims to develop GMO crops for emerging-market countries, decided to apply Bt. to other crops. One vegetable in particular, eggplant, is widely consumed in Bangladesh and is the target of several insects. In the past, it required heavy use of pesticides for successful cultivation. In 2014, scientists brought Bt.-engineered eggplant seed to market. Just a handful of Bangladeshi farmers began sowing Bt.-eggplant seeds when they first became available in 2014. Fast-forward to the 2020/2021 growing season, and now over 65,000 farmers use Bt.-eggplant seeds.
The three orders of magnitude rise over six years in Bt.-eggplant cultivation highlights the plant's effectiveness against pests and a belief that this particular GMO crop is safe for consumption and environmentally friendly.
Fungus-Immune Potatoes
Feed the Future scientists developed another GMO crop to improve agricultural output while fighting nasty fungus. One nasty fungus, in particular, Phytophthora infestans, better known as late blight (the same fungus responsible for the Irish Potato Famine of the mid-1800s), currently ravages Bangladeshi and Indonesian potato crop yields, cutting off crop output by a margin-killing 25-57%. Attempting to counter late blight, farmers currently douse their potato crops in fungicide, throughout the potato's growth-cycle. Fungicide application can continue for up to 130 days.
Luckily, Feed the Future scientists have developed GMO potatoes immune to late blight, and they've conducted several experiments in Indonesia and Bangladesh. As a result, government officials from both countries hope to bring these potatoes to market very soon. Ultimately, these GMO potatoes could reduce fungicide usage by around 90%.
Forthcoming Applications and Technology
Pest and fungus-resistant crops are just the tip of the spear in the fight to improve human well-being through GMO crop applications. Moreover, these GMO applications apply to multitudinous crops—not just corn, potatoes, and eggplants.
Modern genetic science is pouring copious capital and research into developing new GMO crops. For example, a recent statement from the University of Connecticut (UConn), a US institute of higher education that dedicates many resources to GMO crop development, indicates a positive outcome. UConn believes that the next generation of GMO crops will provide humanity with tools for several challenges, such as genetically-engineered crops that thrive in dry climates. It also includes crops engineered to offer specific compounds to pharmaceutical drugs. And, scientists are experimenting with new crops that provide more nutrition, such as omega-3 fatty acid-rich soybeans.
GMO Risks and Benefits: Conclusion
As we noted in our first blog about GMO foods, humans have manipulated crops for thousands of years. However, only in the last 40 years have scientists harnessed the ability to tinker with plant DNA, changing crops' features.
GMO crop implementation is not risk-free and requires thorough testing and regulation to confirm safety. For example, genetic material from problematic organisms must not be used to modify crops that a large swath of a population will be exposed to or will eat. Furthermore, scientists and regulatory bodies must collaborate to nip second-order effects in the bud, as illustrated in the glyphosate case.
In many cases, GMO crop adoption has squelched insecticide and fungicide use and increased crop yields, sparing both the environment and farmers' cash. Ultimately, humanity is only in genetic modification's early stages, so we can expect to see many more advancements in GMO crops in the years to come.
The Island Leaf team always enjoys hearing blog feedback. Send us a message and let us know your opinions about the risks and benefits of GMO crops.
Commentaires