What's wrong with eating a GMO?

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Another random thing I've been thinking about...there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the existence of GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) but I don't think the prospect of eating one should be included in that.

I mean, I'm pretty sure the human digestive system is unaffected by the genetic makeup of the items it's disintegrating with enzymes and acids...and a lot of food processing (for example, cooking...) destroys DNA before it even has a chance to get into your body. To be further destroyed.

And yet, over the past few years, everything in the supermarket has been slapped all over with GMO-related warnings on the labels, even followed by statements like "there is no evidence that the genetically-modified version is any more dangerous than this one, but we're warning you anyway".

So...it really looks like they're just doing this for people's peace of mind. But why??

[unknown_user]

I mean, I'm pretty sure the human digestive system is unaffected by the genetic makeup of the items it's disintegrating with enzymes and acids...and a lot of food processing (for example, cooking...) destroys DNA before it even has a chance to get into your body. To be further destroyed.

Agree. There is no known way how DNA of GMO plants, as well as any other plants or animals, which we eat, can harm our own DNA. So this is likely impossible.

And yet, over the past few years, everything in the supermarket has been slapped all over with GMO-related warnings on the labels, even followed by statements like "there is no evidence that the genetically-modified version is any more dangerous than this one, but we're warning you anyway".

I think that the main reason of negative attitude toward GMO is just because people are somewhat afraid of everything new. The current fashion on "natural products" is probably the part of this. And, of course, marketologes are using these fears and untrust, as well as this whole "natural fashion" just to make their products more attractive to consumers.

---

I also fully recognize, that the new kinds of plants, created with genetics modifications, should be investigated diligently for being safe for humans, before use them as a food. They are not tested naturarly by many years of wide using, like ordinary edible plants did, so, of course, we should check them for issues (as well as any possible unknown kinds of food) and test them as diligently as possible before eating.
But the amount of hype around them is still not quite adequate in my opinion.

There is some post about it on lesswrong:

Should I be afraid of GMOs? - LessWrong 2.0

[joannekwan]

Just how the market goes. People who aren't educated on issues can be easily scared. So buzzwords fly around and they are groomed into believing the terms they should avoid.

Heck, even selective breeding counts as genetic modification is what a lot of people don't understand.

I believe the biggest harm of GMO's are big companies like Monsanto patenting their strains of corn or whatever and then suing smaller businesses when their crops accidentally crossbreed. At least that's what I read in an article some years ago.

[joannekwan]

and maybe the result become invasive or some sort

OH YEAH that is an issue when 'mad sciencing' goes wrong, like what produced africanized bees.

Africanized bee

[Cavechan]

Oh god, GMOs are my jam. I'm a bit passionate about this topic.

A LOT of the information out there about GMOs is just so incredibly wrong it's really unbelievable. But it is believable when you realize there are billions of dollars out there being made on the premise that organic is superior to GMO. Truth: they aren't and also in some ways are actually inferior to GMOs.

There are so many myths out there it's difficult to even find one to begin with. One I hear a lot is that GMOs are doused with "chemicals". Some GMOs are made resistant to pesticides/herbicides so that LESS of those have to be used. Fact: organic crops still use pesticides/herbicides ("chemicals") and many of them are actually MORE toxic than the ones used in GMOs.

Another myth: GMOs are less nutritious. False. Case in point: When Cheerios became "organic", they had to remove the vitamin Riboflavin because in some places it isn't considered organic.

Another myth: "Non-GMO Project" labeled foods means there aren't any GMOs in the food. False. Some foods labeled with this fear-mongering label contain Riboflavin or similar ingredients. See above.

Another myth: "Well, GMOs are fine, but big ag like Monsanto sue innocent farmers!" Here's a great article that gives an overview on the facts about Monsanto suing farmers: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/

Even as the GMO scare continues, there is more and more information out there. Monsanto's website has a lot of info on it: https://monsanto.com/ There's the site I linked above. There's also https://gmoanswers.com/

Another myth: "Big ag is just trying to steal our money." https://grist.org/food/organic-industry-sales-put-monsanto-to-shame/ Has a chart showing that Monsanto and Whole Foods made about the same in 2015, with Whole Foods making the higher number.

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with organic food. Organic food is fine as is and if it can be improved awesome and if it doesn't need to be improved then that's also awesome. But what is wrong is the on-going fear-mongering. The growing amount of products labeled "Non-GMO Project" perpetuating the fear mongering. Do not be confused. The "Organic" label is there as information. The Non-GMO Project label is there to scare people into buying the product with the label.

Okay, this was long... and I could write more... but I'll stop here. lol I really don't know that much. I've just listened to the experts.

[skicoak]

Yeah, it's weird that people will raise the pitchforks and torches to GMO foods but seem fine with their housepets getting selectively breed into life long health problems.

[Jenny-Toons]

I'm kinda curious if enough people know where seedless watermelons, seedless grapes, bananas, and the likes come from.

These are prime examples of genetic splicing and other types of GMOs. Like the bananas we eat now do not look like the real ones/previous ones. You know -- the ones with big seeds that look like spiders. Even watermelons with seeds don't look the same as they did centuries ago.

GMOs have their ups and downs, of course, but it's generally not all bad.

[ZombieOwl]

Yeah, whenever you say "genetically modified organism", it sounds scary, so, I guess that's why.

Even though selective breeding is a type of genetic modification, it still sounds scary lol

[orionsloosetooth]

I have nothing to contribute intellectually since I am not well informed on the subject BUT I don't think GMOs are inherently bad and can sometimes help. There's this video if anyone is still interested and, in my opinion, it helps me to understand the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4 B

[qwerty]

Hello, person with farming experience and degree in horticulture here sorry but this got pretty long ^^;

@DokiDokiTsuna I've never thought the issue with GMO's has been considered the DNA you're consuming directly, but rather the substances in the crop that are being produced by the DNA, etc.

Two potential ways that GMO crops could conceivably cause harm are:

• some crops are modified to be resistant to herbicides, which allows for greater herbicide use. If the herbicides are considered to be harmful and this leads to greater residue on crops, this could be an issue. But I will mention that regulations exist as to how herbicides are applied, at what concentrations, how many days must pass between application and harvest, etc.

• some crops are modified to produce pesticides directly in their tissue so that they don't have to be applied in the field. If these pesticides are considered harmful to humans, this could be an issue. Many pesticides are indeed very harmful to humans, to the extent that regulations require those who apply them to wear protective clothing (ranging anywhere from long sleeves and pants to full-body suits with gas masks). However, I really, really doubt that any of those seriously harmful ones are actually modified into plants. By far the most common modification of this type (that I'm aware of) is the addition of DNA that creates Bt-toxin, a substance that is poisonous to many insects but is considered safe enough to be technically "organic" and is commonly used on organic farms.

Overall, I think it's a mistake to make a blanket statement "all GMOs are safe/unsafe" - that's like saying "all medicine is safe/unsafe". All types of GMOs can be totally different depending on what DNA is actually involved. A bit of DNA could produce a leaf, human hair, or snake venom, depending on what it is - and each GMO's safety can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Regulations exist of course, and companies can't just release any GMO crop they want all willy-nilly without conducting safety trials. But some people don't trust the government or corporations to be fair or thorough enough, and/or don't trust that the studies aren't conducted without "special interests" involved.

It's worth noting that it's fairly easy to determine whether something has acute/short-term effects (just feed it to some rats and see what happens over a few weeks), but much harder to determine what chronic/long-term effect it may have. It's entirely possible that some GMOs do indeed cause subtle harm to the human system over many years, but nobody has established it because it's impractical to run studies that long. Some people say this is the most likely source of the relatively recent rise in allergies, disorders like autism, etc. (either that or vaccines, but that's a whole different debate).

Also, random fact - "organic" foods aren't necessarily non-GMO. It's possible this could have changed since then, but a few years ago I was looking through the paperwork needed to get an "organic" certification (in the U.S., not sure how it all works elsewhere) - and organic farmers are required to use non-GMO seeds unless they aren't available for some reason. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was basically that you have to try to use non-GMO crops, but you don't really have to if you have an excuse.

Ultimately, am I concerned about GMOs? TBH not really, although I'm not entirely dismissive of those who are. Special interests influencing the results of studies (and lobbying to influence the regulations in the first place) is a reasonable concern IMO, even if I'm not sure to what extent it actually happens. And even the "experts" likely don't know a whole lot about what subtle long-term effects some of the products may have. It's easy to just draw a conclusion - "GMOs are bad" or "it's all just hype and fear-mongering", but the reality is that none of us actually know anything for sure.

Personally, I just try to eat healthy in general - no use worrying about GMOs if you already live on sodas and junk food XD. And if at some point I end up dying an early death due to some kind of harmful GMO then I'm cool with it. Gotta die at some point anyway, a little sooner won't hurt ^^

[indagold]

GMOs are fine to eat. We've been eating genetically modified animals for centuries through selective breeding, hell we've had farmers cook and eat freaking tumors from their cows (ugh) and turn out fine. If a GMO is inedible there's a billion other GMOs out there to replace it. The people who pander it think science is scary spooky horror... that's it.

[Rasp]

The problem was never GMOs themselves as this thread has spelled out the science is pretty clear they aren't that different. The liberal use of Herb/pesticides are the real main point of contention for me. Genetic modification should be used to enhance yield and reduce the amount of water needed or any number of things that make farming more efficient. We just need to find a less harmful way of protecting these crops from weeds and other pests.

[IdiotWithPencil]

And yet, over the past few years, everything in the supermarket has been slapped all over with GMO-related warnings on the labels, even followed by statements like "there is no evidence that the genetically-modified version is any more dangerous than this one, but we're warning you anyway".

So...it really looks like they're just doing this for people's peace of mind. But why??

the same reason Colgate in India promotes it being made with charcoal, to make people buy the product more simple as that

[IdiotWithPencil]

We just need to find a less harmful way of protecting these crops from weeds and other pests.

they're trying to make the veggies have their own natural pesticides right now(like coffee style), harmless to us of course

viva GMO =D

[vothnthorvaldson]

Thank you! I was debating whether to answer or not and you did it for me. It's very nice to see a balanced message ( and thus, closer to reality).

For the organic certification I don't know about US but no GMO in Europe and Canada.

(I'm a biologist and a farmer - so not far from your experience).

[vothnthorvaldson]

There are different types of GMO. You can't compare variation obtained by reshuffling between close species with adding new genes into a plant.

[indagold]

I'm not saying its the same but the argument for GMOs could be virtually same for selective breeding.

[vothnthorvaldson]

I don't think so. It's simply not comparable.

Take a GMO without novel gene addition (or only plant genes from a very similar species), and compare it to selective breeding:

• In both cases, you could possibly have toxicity or environmental problems due to the recombination of genetic material; but yes, these risks are pretty similar in both cases, and generally easily spotted (at least for toxicity) .

• But in the case of the GMO, you have an additional problem: the existence of 'tools' used to create the GMO, and that remain into the plant. Much research has been done on that, and some newer techniques are less problematic, but still, it is a difference and remains an issue in some GMOs.

Then take the case of a GMO with novel genes: here, you are introducing genes that have nothing to do inside that plant. Genes are very dependent of their genetic environment. Very often, removing a gene from its usual environment and putting it somewhere else gives very strange and unexpected results: That's actually one of the things that makes research on GMO complicated even at the lab level! You can't just do your little market in the pool of available genes and expect it will work.

That aspect makes GMO with novel genes completely unpredictable in a way traditional breeding just can't be.

This being said I'm not against GMO, I'm just a scientist who actually worked on GMO for research purpose (not agriculture) and I know first hand that it is not a benign technique.

I just wish more time and energy was spent pushing toward more comprehensive and transparent testing rather than on insisting that GMO are safe, or that they are necessarily dangerous... But I'm pretty pessimistic about the transparency.

[echoeotto]

I think that the main reason of negative attitude toward GMO is just because people are somewhat afraid of everything new. The current fashion on "natural products" is probably the part of this. And, of course, marketologes are using these fears and untrust, as well as this whole "natural fashion" just to make their products more attractive to consumers.

I also fully recognize, that the new kinds of plants, created with genetics modifications, should be investigated diligently for being safe for humans, before use them as a food. They are not tested naturarly by many years of wide using, like ordinary edible plants did, so, of course, we should check them for issues (as well as any possible unknown kinds of food) and test them as diligently as possible before eating.But the amount of hype around them is still not quite adequate in my opinion.

Agreeing with this ^^^ Of course we should be responsible with what we put in our bodies, but the negative attitude towards GMOs is largely due to marketing and misconceptions.

There's a misconception that organic = healthy (and, therefore, non-organic = evil), but pretty much every poisonous plant and venomous animal to have ever existed is "organic." It's a false dichotomy.

[indagold]

lol thats not at all what I was saying at all. I was saying the people who think gmos are bad but think selective breeding is good makes no sense because they want "natural" from the earth pure stuff despite the fact most food they eat are not the original strain genetic wise, humans have tampered with it. And I said if a gmo is deemed dangerous there could be another gmo out there that isn't. I never said all gmos are perfect. you didn't have to explain that I know what gmos are haha