Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?

Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?

Skeptoid #112
August 05, 2008
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 112 , August 05, 2008
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/ 4112

Today we're going to look at one of the most divisive issues in global food production: genetically modified organisms. Supporters point to vastly improved crop yields and reduced need for fertilizers and pesticides; opponents claim that such products are inadequately tested and may result in unknown dangers. Some poor developing countries, like the Philippines and some African nations, have become battlegrounds between the environmentalists and the farmers. Let's find out what both sides are claiming.

So what exactly are genetically modified organisms, and how does genetic engineering differ from the type of artificial crop development that man has been practicing for thousands of years? Nature's method of genetically hybridizing plants is cross pollination, and for most of human history, this is how farmers and scientists have created new and improved species of crops. Plants can be hybridized quite readily, more so than animals, but there's still a limit to how far apart the species can be. The principal differentiator of direct genetic manipulation is that you can move individual genes from one species to virtually any other species, no matter how different they are. But more to the point, you can select specific genes that carry specifically desirable traits, and accomplish far more significant improvements with much greater control in much less time.

The first commercially available genetically modified organisms were in medicine. The first widely produced GMO was synthetic insulin, which was approved by the FDA in 1982, and is how all medical insulin is now produced. Human growth hormone used to have to be taken from cadavers, but through GMO it's now produced synthetically. The vaccine for Hepatitis B was developed through GMO in 1987. Genetic engineering is also responsible for the oil-eating bacteria used in industrial applications. When designing improved food crops through traditional hybridization, one of the principle barriers is that the new offspring are often sterile, particularly when the species being cross pollinated are too far apart. Through GMO hybridization, this barrier can often be overcome.

When it comes to food crops, the idea is to take the strengths of one plant strain, such as an immunity to a certain disease or a hardiness to certain adverse conditions, and transfer that strength to another plant strain that needs it. One example that researchers are working on now is immunity to the "rust fungus", a fungus that affects all cereals but for some reason rice is immune to it. If that immunity can be given to other cereals like wheat and barley, then we have a better crop that is resistant to one more disease. Yields go up, and the need for chemicals to eradicate the fungus goes down. Everyone wins.

In 1943, what became known as the Green Revolution began when Mexico, unable to feed its growing population, shouted for help. Within a few years, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations founded the International Rice Research Institute in Asia, and by 1962, a new strain of rice called IR8 was feeding people all over the world. IR8 was the first really big modified crop to make a real impact on world hunger. In 1962 the technology did not yet exist to directly manipulate the genes of plants, and so IR8 was created by carefully crossing existing varieties: selecting the best from each generation, further modifying them, and finally finding the best. Here is the power of modified crops: IR8, with no fertilizer, straight out of the box, produced five times the yield of traditional rice varieties. In optimal conditions with nitrogen, it produced ten times the yield of traditional varieties. By 1980, IR36 resisted pests and grew fast enough to allow two crops a year instead of just one, doubling the yield. And by 1990, using more advanced genetic manipulation techniques, IR72 was outperforming even IR36. The Green Revolution saw worldwide crop yields explode from 1960 through 2000.

No discussion of GMO is complete without a mention of Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, 1977 US Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2006 Congressional Gold Medal winner, and best known as the father of the Green Revolution. The unanimous act of Congress states "Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history." The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation. Dr. Borlaug did it by pioneering the use of hybrid and genetically modified crops, designing new strains that could thrive in arid conditions where pesticides or herbicides were not available. He's also known for "Borlaug's Hypothesis" which proposes that the best way to reduce deforestation is to reduce demand for new farmland by using our best existing farmland to its maximum potential.

GMO crops also give seed manufacturers capabilities with potential to be less benevolent. By employing what are called "Terminator" genes, manufacturers can theoretically exercise patent enforcement techniques not too different from software activation. You can grow the plants fine, but the engineered traits require chemical activation, thus enforcing annual license fees from farmers. However, terminator features can also be used to address the concerns of anti-GMO activists worried about cross pollination and contamination. Crops can be engineered to produce sterile seeds, or to produce only sterile offspring should cross pollination with conventional crops occur.

When we turn our skeptical eye toward the Philippines, we see Greenpeace activists wearing full biohazard spacesuits cutting down GMO crops and disposing of them in sealed containers. By inviting reporters and photographers to document these demonstrations, they very effectively spread terror among the undereducated poor Filipino public. Now, I think any reasonable person agrees that you wouldn't do such a drastic thing without very good reason; so there must indeed be very good evidence that GMO crops are only safely handled by hazmat disposal teams — wouldn't you think? Let's look at Greenpeace's website and see what frightening information they've uncovered.

The production of unexpected toxins and allergens. Because genetic engineering is a very imprecise technology, the insertion of foreign genes can stimulate the production of unexpected proteins, which may prove toxic or allergenic.

First of all, it's hardly a "very imprecise technology"; gene manipulation requires great precision, and produces far more precisely designed results than can be hoped for with simple cross pollination. The very purpose of the research is to avoid toxic or allergenic results. When these results are found in GMOs, those products are not sent to the market. Duh.

A large part of science involves learning how to make things better. Do we stop all scientific research in every field because learning how to make things better also teaches us what makes them worse? What a ridiculous objection.

Antibiotic resistance. Scientists add genes that confer resistance to common antibiotics.

What they meant to say is that some GMO research seeks to find ways to make crops resistant to harmful bacteria, by incorporating the right toxins into the crop, thus eliminating the need to apply that toxin separately in the form of synthetic or organic pesticides (yes, people, organic pesticides contain the same toxins found in synthetic pesticides — they have to, otherwise they wouldn't function). Finding ways to manage this process to avoid creating resistant pests has been a major area of study in farming science for centuries. This is a farming problem that exists independently of GMO. GMO neither creates not exacerbates this issue.

Effects on the Environment. Genetically engineered crops represent new and potentially invasive forms of life.

All plant species are potentially invasive, and that's why farmers use good management techniques. There's no reason you should be expected to do this any more or any less with GMO crops as you have always had to do with all crops. This criticism says nothing about GMO.

Contamination of seeds and crops. People are still increasingly finding even non-GE stocks contaminated. This is due to cross pollination where contaminated pollen is carried by wind or as seeds spread out in the environment or are mixed up during handling.

This has always been true of all plants. Cross pollination has nothing to do with GMO. It is responsible for all the biodiversity of plant life on the planet. Calling it "contamination" is simply using a weasel word to raise alarm about a perfectly natural, normal process.

GE foods remove consumer choice. Because of the widespread contamination caused by GE crops and the fact that many GE crops are not kept separate in the food system, consumers in the Philippines have been denied the right to choose not to eat genetically engineered food.

Again, this has always been true of all food crops. Virtually all modern food crops — cereals, corn, rice — are the result of human hybridization. Is Greenpeace applying this criticism to all food crops, or only to those developed by for-profit companies? Is this a scientific objection, or an ideological objection?

Biopiracy. In order to achieve the desired traits chemical companies often use genes acquired from plants, animals and bacteria found in poorer countries. In effect these genes are being stolen from the poor to feed corporate profits.

And what is Greenpeace's most frequent argument in favor of maintaining Brazilian rain forest? The forest, says Greenpeace, acts "as a crucial medicine chest for pharmaceutical advance." When it serves their purposes, Greenpeace is all in favor of using substances from plants in poor countries. But when someone else does it to feed people, suddenly it's "biopiracy". This is the height of hypocrisy. Increasing knowledge by studying genetics in a different country is good for everyone. Is this really the best Greenpeace can do?

Loss of Farmers Rights. Because genetically engineered seeds are patented, the seed company can maintain strict control over how the seeds are used.

This is true of all patented products in the world. Even Greenpeace retains strict control over their legally protected properties, profiting from T-shirt and bumper sticker sales, and prosecuting those who violate their copyrights. This is yet another hypocritical and irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with the science or safety of GMO.

Genetic engineering is unnatural. Because genetic engineering creates new living organisms that would never naturally occur, many people hold moral and spiritual objections to it.

Finally, an honest and factual objection. There's nothing at all wrong with having moral and spiritual opinions. What is wrong is calling them science, and using them to deny food to poor people to whom your spiritual notions may not be as important as feeding their starving children.

And yet, these are the best reasons Greenpeace can come up with to defend the act of terrorizing Filipinos by raiding their farms wearing hazmat suits. I'll conclude my discussion of GMO with a quote from Norman Borlaug, who says it better than I could:

"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning

© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Bennett, P.M., Livesey, C.T., Nathwani, D., Reeves, D.S., Saunders, J.R., Wise, R. "An assessment of the risks associated with the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy." Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 1 Mar. 2004, Volume 53, Issue 3: 418-431.

Dionio, A. "Genetic Engineering Victory in Mindoro." Greenpeace SEAsia. Greenpeace, 12 Oct. 2005. Web. 3 Apr. 2008. <http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/reports/ge_victory_mindoro>

Ganzel, Bill. "The Development of "Miracle Rice" Varieties." Living History Farm. Wessels Living History Farm, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 1 Aug. 2008. <http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/crops_17.html>

NBHF. "Dr. Borlaug's Boyhood Home." The Norman Borlaug Heritage Foundation. The Norman Borlaug Heritage Foundation, 23 May 2008. Web. 23 May. 2008. <http://www.normanborlaug.org/>

Ward, S.,Byrne P. "'Terminator' Technology." Transgenic Crops:An Introduction and Resource Guide. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University, 2 Feb. 2004. Web. 28 May. 2008. <http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/terminator.html>

Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian. "Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 5 Aug 2008. Web. 4 Feb 2012. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112>

Discuss!

5 most recent comments | Show all 120 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Kingsley, I am not sure the grain patent will have much of a leg to stand on once the technique patent expires.

Technology is a bit ingenious like this.

If you look at the research to establish medicinal and nutritional variants/strains, you would have to say the right to patent should be upheld.

The beauty of it is, if there are the claimed monstrous cross pollinations or epigenetic transfer effects to adjoinng fields, the patency can and will backfire.

Maybe we will get a marvellous cross thnk of bioethical and GE marketing (not science!) to produce...hang on...California is at it as we speak!

Marketing...we love it!

On marketing, may I too add my disgust at greenpeace' actions on CSIRO research plantations of late.

Next time at least have the disclaimer that you were forced to use a brand of petrol and lawn trimmer in your "environmental" crusade. The nylon suits? Its not a good look guys as you wave your marketing cred around.

How come that we can garden and keep on smiling too? Wootex(inc) hardware for all your destructive needs..
Henk V., Sin City, Oz
October 08, 2011 6:21pm
I generally see no inherent problem with GM crops but I like to be in a position to know and be able to respond to arguments against it. Someone recently pointed me to this link:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm.

It seems to be a reputable journal (impact factor 2-3, no obvious agenda), and the M&M of the paper seem reasonably robust, given that they're using someone else's data. Of course there IS the issue of extrapolating from rats to humans but notwithstanding this IMO even this little evidence is slightly concerning.

My question, for any GM proponents who might be better informed than me, is "are there any flaws in this paper you can see?". Why is this not more publicly known? There must be SOME reason (conspiracies aside), right?

Please help,

Rohan
Rohan, Sydney, Australia
October 25, 2011 1:49am
Those skeptical of the dangerous aspects of GMO foods and interested in relevant peer-reviewed literature should read the following. I don't want to overload the reader, so I will start with just a couple:

-"New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity": http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/
-"The Impact of Dietary Organic and Transgenic Soy on the Reproductive System of Female Adult Rat": http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20878/full
Also, Genetically modified corn and soybeans have been linked to organ disruptions in rats and mice in 19 studies: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
News Story "Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes": http://tinyurl.com/2eeo6cz
And the following Lancet excerpts (I don't endorse the entire site, but the excerpts are worthwhile): http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Green-Revolution-Health-Risks.htm

Then, read "Genetic Roulette" by Jeffery Smith. His book has, of course, been under attack. Smith has responded: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/pseudo-scientific-defense_b_528477.html

Smith's book, his rebuttal to the attacks, and what I have posted should give a good overview. Also read F.W. Engdahl - "Seeds of Destruction".
blissentia, Shangri-La
November 16, 2011 10:38pm
I agree with the author on the real benefits of GM crops, and that they are generally safe, when properly tested. On the other hands, I also have a few issues with the podcast.

I've often heard genetic engineering belitteled as just one step beyond classic cross-breeding, which "we've been doing for thousands of years". But it's disingenious to underplay its revolutionary power and newness. Manipulating genes directly is something we haven't been doing for a millenium, or even a mere hundred years; and it's a quantum leap in possibilities and over boundaries rather than a boost in efficiency, like the transition from steam to gasoline power. Cross-breeding might create a human/ape hybrid, but could it (one day) resurrect the Mammoth, or my Grandma - minus all her memories of me, of course? We can also do plenty of disgusting or harmful things using "natural" methods, as is evidenced by the bred-in weaknesses in many a kind of pedigree pet dog. It's important not to get carried away.

Brian also didn't properly adress cross-pollination by GM seeds - I'm speaking out of educational disappointment here. I admit to not have researched the issue, other than having listened to Percy Schmeiser and other farmers like him. Seeds from plants without "terminator" genes should have built-in "evolutionary" advantages over less engineered varieties. Saying that cross-pollination happens "all the time, anyway" amounts to "I'm getting beat up by Muhammad Ali all the time" with GM crops.
AL, Augsburg, Germany
December 12, 2011 11:31am
Just a quick correction, insulin is not a GMO, the E. coli that the insulin gene was transformed into was a GMO. The "O" stands for organism, after all. Insulin is peptide. Sorry for being nit-picky and if this had already been addressed.
Bobby Gaultney, Grand Forks, ND
December 12, 2011 9:42pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:

City/Location:

Comment:
characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.

Answer 1 + 3 =

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

#1 -	How to Debate a Young Earth Creationist Read \| Listen

#2 -	The Real Philadelphia Experiment Read \| Listen

#3 -	Medical Myths in Movies and Culture Read \| Listen

#4 -	Kangen Water: Change Your Water, Change Your Life Read \| Listen

#5 -	HAARP Myths Read \| Listen

#6 -	MonaVie and Other "Superfruit" Juices Read \| Listen

#7 -	Religion as a Moral Center Read \| Listen

#8 -	Apocalypse 2012 Read \| Listen

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:	characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.
Answer 1 + 3 =


	About Skeptoid ▼ About Skeptoid Subscribe to the Podcast Episode Guide What People Are Saying... What Is Skepticism? Donate Press Room Contact Topics ▼ Aliens & UFOs Alternative Medicine Ancient Mysteries Conspiracies Consumer Ripoffs Cryptozoology Environment Fads Feedback & Questions General Science Health Logic & Persuasion Natural History Paranormal Religion Urban Legends Free Stuff & Swag ▼ Skeptoid Swag iPhone App Android App OS X Widget Community ▼ Newsletter Skeptoid Blog Skeptoid Forum Skeptalk Email Discussion List Answering Student Questions Help with Skeptoid Research SkepticBlog.org Thunderwood College: Get Your Degree in Seconds! One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge Live Shows ▼ Calendar Information Books & Videos ▼ Skeptoid Books Skeptoid Videos inFact web series DVDs Truth Hurts web series Here Be Dragons Video & DVD

Email:	*
First name:
Last name:

Genetically Modified Organisms: Jeopardy or Jackpot?

References & Further Reading

Discuss!

Recent Comments...