MISCONCEPTIONS
Under one third of the public believe that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. An overwhelming 52% believe that these foods are unsafe, while the remaining 13% are skeptical. ( .1)
A majority of the public believe that GM foods are unsafe for consumption. Many of these individuals are misinformed, however, about these enhanced crops. Here are the 10 most common myths about GM foods, as well as the core truths behind them.
( .3)
1. Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology. ( .2)
Opponents of genetically modified crops claim that these crops are a "radical technology." They assert that this new agricultural technology is artificial and harmful to the natural balance of life on Earth. However, what they fail to recognize is that humans have been manipulating the genes of our crops for millennia. Since the dawn of agriculture, we have been selectively breeding our plants for desirable traits. In this sense, virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in one way or another. And besides, even if genetically modified crops were a “radical technology,” there have been numerous cases in history where scientists have been called “radical” in the development of new sciences. As anticipated, however, many of these so-called “radical” scientists have been proven to be correct in their studies. This is evidence that every so often, exceptional developments in science and technology, such as genetically modified crops, deviate from society’s norms to create a truly remarkable advance on the world.
2. Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are hazardous. ( .2)
( .4)
Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago. In 1994, they became a commercial product. Since then, over 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been conducted and published, all of which focus on human health and the environment. This includes 5 lengthy reports from the National Research Council. Additionally, the scientific consensus agrees the existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional non-GMO crops.
3. Claim: Farmers cannot replant genetically modified seeds. ( .2)
So-called terminator genes, which have the ability to make seeds sterile, never make it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies require farmers to sign contracts that prevent replanting. This is done to ensure annual sales; however, according to Ken Bradford, large-scale commercial growers usually do not save seeds anyway. Because corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, its seeds would not produce the correct traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy, on the other hand, produce seeds that can be saved. However, most farmers do not bother saving those seeds because the quality begins to deteriorate.
( .5)
4. Claim: We do not need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world. ( .2)
( .6)
Between now and 2050, it is estimated that the global population will rise from 7.2 billion to an astonishing 9.6 billion. The question of how to nourish two billion additional people in a fluctuating environment will prove one of the greatest challenges mankind has ever faced. Genetically modified crops have the ability to play a vital role in ending the worldwide struggle to feed the growing population.
5. Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems. ( .2)
Numerous people are concerned that genetic engineering introduces dangerous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. While it is theoreticaly possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response, many precautions are done to ensure that this does not happen. Biotech companies consult witht the Food and Drug Administration about poteintial GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testings. These tests are conducted on a voluntary basis, but they are very common. If they are not done, the FDA can potentially block the products.
( .7)
6. Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag. ( .2)
This claim is simply not true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviwed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.
7. Claim: GM crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides. ( .2)
Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist. The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.
8. Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds. ( .2)
Evolution is inevitable. If farmers rely on the use of Bt or glyphosate too heavily, then pesticide reistance will start to occur. The solution to this problem, however, is to practice integrated pest management. This practice includes crop rotation.
9. Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species. ( .2)
Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild. A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.
( .8)
10. Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem. ( .2)
The first half of this claim could certainly be true. Plants swap genetic material all the time through the transfer of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets. According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight. As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.
( .9)