5 Major GMO Myths Debunked
June 1, 2016 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) organisms are having their moment in the spotlight. Between receiving shout-outs from popular television pundits like Jon Stewart and Dr. Oz to the countless viral social media posts showing mutant ears of corn and tomatoes with legs, information — or lack thereof, is everywhere.
Separating hearsay from the truth can be difficult. This is especially true when so many sources claim to have done research backed by science, or claim any opposing viewpoints boast a hidden agenda meant to deceive a gullible public. Where is a well-meaning citizen to turn?
Enter the Biotech Project from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The project, which is directed by Gregory Jaffe, began in 2001 and intends to address scientific concerns, government policies, and corporate practices related to GE foods. More specifically, the project looks at the benefits, risks, and impacts of GE technology, and educates consumers based on findings.
“In general, our view is that this technology, as with other technology, needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. You have to look at the specific applications and say, is that safe? And if it’s safe, what are the benefits?” Jaffe says.
To help shed light on some of the confusion surrounding GMOs, Jaffe highlights a few of the commonly circulated myths and some lesser-known truths about the technology, with the underlying assertion that as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Myths Vs. Facts
Myth #1: The FDA approves all GE crops before they go to market. Contrary to popular belief, Jaffe says that while GE crops are overseen by USDA, FDA, and EPA — and each of these agencies manage different aspects of the regulation process — FDA has no mandatory approval process for GE crops to be evaluated for human consumption. The only approval process in place currently is voluntary, he says.
“There is nothing in the law that requires growers to go to FDA for approval. Many other consumers have an approval process, for example in Europe and Canada, and our consumers deserve the same process as the other countries,” Jaffe says.
He explains that USDA has a process in place that regulates GE seed before it goes to market, and that seed breeders must get approval from USDA before they can distribute any product. This process provides breeders with a “plant permit,” says Jaffe, which largely looks at agriculture and crop safety issues. However issues associated with human consumption are not addressed during this evaluation stage.
Furthermore, because some GE crops have built in pesticides, and because EPA regulates all pesticides, those particular GE crops must be regulated by EPA.
- Myth #2: The only people that benefit from GE Crops are developers. “Farmers are smart people,” Jaffe says. “They are businessmen and women. They are in the business to produce food and make a living. If a seed doesn’t perform for them, they won’t buy it the following year.”
Jaffe provides the example of papaya farmers in Hawaii who have greatly benefitted from GE papaya, which saved their crop from a potential wipeout from Papaya Ringspot Virus in 1992.
“This is not a technology that’s only available to the big multinational companies,” Jaffe adds.
Myth #3: GE crops are only for large, industrial-scale farmers. The technology scale is neutral, according to Jaffe, and can be used in someone’s backyard, or on 400 acres of land. In fact, he says that worldwide, the vast majority of GE crop growers are small sustenance farms in India, China, and other countries.
“While GE farmers in the U.S. may be very large scale and commercial, there are plenty of small-scale growers around the world. To suggest that this only works for large-scale farmers is simply untrue,” Jaffe says.
Myth #4: GE crops increase pesticide use. This is a scenario that must be evaluated on a case by case basis, Jaffe says.
“For example, a Bt corn or cotton reduces pesticide use because you’re using a biological organism as a pesticide — and Bt cotton in the south has greatly reduced pesticide use. There are other GE crops like virus-resistant squash or papaya that have no reduced pesticide use, and then there’s herbicide-tolerant corn, which requires an increase of herbicides. You just can’t generalize with this one,” he explains.
Myth #5: GE crops are not sustainable. This is another example that requires evaluation on a case by case basis, Jaffe says. Providing the example of herbicide-resistant corn, he says an overuse and misuse of the technology has resulted in the development of resistant weeds.
“However, [Bt corn] can be used in a sustainable manner. If you use these crops combined with IPM, they could form part of a sustainable system. It’s not inherent that they aren’t sustainable, it’s just how they’re being used.”
Lesser Known Truths
One thing Jaffe says many consumers have not yet realized, is that GE technology can co-exist with organic production and other forms of agriculture.
“There are farmers out there who can grow organic crops and GE crops. Coexistent issues depend on the biology on the different crops. It’s very easy to have the two together if one is not open-pollinated,” he says.
There are only about 10 crops on the market that are genetically engineered, so Jaffe asserts that it shouldn’t be hard for growers to grow both GE, and non-GE, or organic crops.
Overall, Jaffe and CPSI take the stance that GE technology is safe for consumers.
“There’s a growing international consensus that these foods are safe to eat. This is not a technology where I would anticipate lots of unsafe products, however, we can’t say anything about the future crops because we haven’t evaluated those,” he says.
Meanwhile, Jaffe and CPSI are taking steps to work with FDA to develop an approval process that is required by law.
Subscribe Today For
