Your alarm goes off at 7 a.m. and you groggily drag yourself out of bed to the shower. You wash your hair with a decyl glucoside shampoo and scrub yourself clean with soothing oat soap. Throwing open the closet door, you select a pair of comfy cotton jeans and a smooth rayon top. In the kitchen, you enjoy your usual cup of coffee and a bowl of corn flakes for breakfast before brushing your teeth with a xylitol toothpaste before heading out the door for the day. Does this sound like a fairly typical routine? How many times do you think you encountered a genetically modified organism (GMO) in that routine? Each italicized work in that routine is indicative of a GMO. So before you even walk out the door, whether you realize it or not, you've most likely encountered a GMO seven times.
You've probably heard of GMOs. Most likely with the association of gross, unnatural things that make you shudder. Why would this cause such a controversy you ask? Here, five common myths of genetic modification are discussed and demonstrate why GMOs are yet omnipresent in our lives, despite what people claim.
1. The technology used in the creation of GMOs makes them unsafe.
The claim that genetic modification itself is dangerous is not grounded in reality. The familiar picture of food being injected with a foreign substance is definitely not an accurate depiction of how genetic modification actually occurs. The chemical composition of a mature plant isn't altered. Instead, its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is altered in order to have a specific outcome. The outcome is typically the expression of a gene (a heritable characteristic encoded in DNA) not normally expressed, or expressed to a lower extent, such as an insect resistance or temperature resistance.
2. GMOs lead to an increase of allergies.
Since the first GMO hit the market in 1994 with FlavrSavr tomatoes, there has also been an increase in the number of times The Green Bay Packers won The Super Bowl. Therefore, GMOs have caused The Packers to win The Super Bowl. Logical, yes? Correlation does not imply causation. Yes, there has been an increase in allergies. Yes, GMOs are relatively new. But The World Health Organization states the two have not been directly linked.
3. GMOs are grossly unnatural.
Genetic modification is not necessarily unnatural either. Bacteria exchange genetic material all the time in a process known as binary fission. Take this advertisement above, produced by the Greenpeace, an independent organization that advocates “solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.” The text in the upper left corner reads, “The DNA of genetically modified plants may contain the genes of insects, animals, or even viruses. These products may potentially cause harm to your health. Look for the ‘GMO Free’ sign on the package.” Disgust is an emotion strongly linked to memory. Associations of food and insects/animals/viruses would predictably elicit a strong feeling of disgust among the general population. Greenpeace is not wrong. The genes of insects, animals, and viruses are used frequently in the synthesis of GMOs in the form of DNA. There are miles of DNA inside of every human being; if the DNA was removed from every cell in the human body, uncoiled, and connected from end to end, the length of the strand would reach the moon. The physical parts, the disgusting parts of said insects/animals/viruses are not used, therefore not gross.
4. GMOs are harmful to the environment.
We have altered the natural gene pool across centuries of selective breeding, which can be said is a primitive form of genetic modification. It is often argued that GMOs cultivate superweeds and are harming beneficial insect species. Superweed growth has been augmented with this selective breeding and is virtually inevitable in modern agriculture. Superweeds come about in a similar fashion to antibiotic resistant bacteria such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Should we stop using antibiotics? If not, then antibiotic resistant bacteria are also inevitable. The studies regarding harm to beneficial insects, such as the monarch butterfly larvae, have all been invalidated, as the studies were significantly flawed and did not demonstrate a causative relationship. Nature has since retracted that article and released a statement with more accurate results.
5. GMOs lead to agri-giants.
Monsanto's may be a a fairly large company, but compare it to oil companies, or even some biotech firms, and it doesn't seem so big. It's smaller than The Gap and Starbucks. The fact that Monsanto's patents seeds is often used as a contemptible reason to hate on Monsanto's. The truth is that seeds were first patented in the 1800s, long before GMOs were even a thing. Many organic and hybrid seeds are also patented and cannot be saved from planting season to planting season. So even though Monsanto’s gets a bad rep, the company is really not doing agriculture any differently than other companies and shouldn’t be singled out.
I'm not trying to discredit possible harm GMOs can cause. I believe we should still be fairly cautious with how we move forward with them and we should continue long-term studies on them. However, these myths that have plagued GMOs with such a bad rep, quite simply, aren't true.
