A while back when I was getting my IB diploma, I was required to write a long pseudo-thesis know to all of us as the extended essay. Being fourteen pages long, it remains today one the longest things I have written. Knowing this paper would be a journey to write, I chose a controversial topic I thought would interest me, that being genetically modified organisms.
Ever since I began my research all those years ago, the scientific study of GMOs and the way the public perceives them has continued to draw me in. That’s why I was thrilled to learn that one of my classes this semester would be discussing GMOs in depth. It was around the same time I started to notice that labels were appearing on boxes of cereal I bought at the store. I had already taken notice of the Non-GMO Project label like the one shown below:
Seeing it made me recall an old article I read while doing research for my essay. In it, the author argued that it is currently impossible to label all the food containing GM products because so many of our commodity crops are genetically modified. It would be impossible to prove if there were any mixed in there or not. In my research, however, I discovered that only a very small percentage of genetically modified crops are processed to make our food. The rest is used to produce ethanol for fuel and feed for livestock.
Despite this, many people still feel that a distinction should be made. The Non-GMO Project has created a label that satisfies this purpose. To become certified, a product must be verified by a third-party auditor and contain no more than 1% genetic modification. Products also cannot come into indirect contact with GM crops. For example, honey made by honeybees that fed near GM corn might not be considered a Non-GMO product, according to third-party auditor David Carter. By placing these labels on our Cheerios, though, would they really be helping anybody?
Genetically modified organisms have been called “substantially equivalent” by the FDA which is responsible for ensuring the safety of food products distributed throughout the United States. Rigorous testing has put to silence concerns that these crops contain allergens, which was a big reason why StarLink corn was banned in the United States in 2000 after finding traces of it in Taco Bell taco shells. GMO crops often contain modifications which change how they respond to pesticides, herbicides, pest invasion, and environmental conditions, such as drought. Being better able to withstand damage caused by these factors has led to increased yields. Despite the increased cost of these seeds, the overall benefit to them is that they earn farmers more money per harvest.
People have raised their voices about the risk of gene transfer creating enhanced pests. These concerns are not unfounded. The transfer of an herbicide-resistance gene from a transgenic crop to a weed could mean the creation of a weed that cannot be killed using common chemicals. Also, ecologists fear that the planting of pest-resistant crops could lead to the evolution of resistant species over several generations. Such risk, however, could be diminished if farmers were to adopt more ecologically-sustainable practices --for instance, if farmers were to dedicate a portion of their land to pest-susceptible crops.
To summarize, GM products are substantially equivalent to “natural” varieties and we have possible solutions to combat some of their potential problems. Why, then, is there still such big push to label them? Well, on top of all of the aforementioned risk we have to assume by planting GM crops, many are still are concerned that we, as a society, are “playing God” by making these transgenic crops, despite the fact that we have used traditional genetic modification systems—such as artificial selection—to create many of our staple foods. It is an issue that is hard to win, and which continues to divide us.
Will there be a benefit for society if we encourage consumers to purchase Non-GMO foods, thus stopping the cultivation of GMOs? Scientists are on the march to ensure that no damage will be done if they remain, but can they help us in all the ways companies have claimed for years they would do? Could they, for example, help reduce carbon emissions? I still think they are a fascinating technology and that it would be ludicrous for us to dismiss them entirely. Without properly understanding the positives and negatives of GMOs, I feel that we, as a society, will never come to an agreement on how to use them properly.
