GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are living
organisms that have altered genetic material that are made in laboratories
using various genetic engineering techniques. Okay, that definition sounds a
little scary. Basically, they are organisms that have been edited to be better
in some fashion, whether through taste, insecticide-resistance, or nutritional
value.
“GMO” has been quite the buzzword in the past few years, especially
in the sense of avoiding them. There became this stigma of how “evil”
genetically modified organisms are and how unnatural it is to consume foods
that contain them. Walking down the aisles of the grocery store, packages boast
NON-GMO or GMO-FREE in all capital letters and bright colors to prove their biological
nature. But, what most people don’t realize, is that a Non-GMO label does not
signify the healthiness of a food item, prove it was grown without pesticides,
or say its harmless to the environment. Unfortunately, the FDA has not
standardized the use of the Non-GMO sticker, so essentially any company could
slap the sticker on their product. There have been times where companies have
used the sticker and have been proven to be using GMO ingredients in their products.
However there is a third-party company called the Non-GMO Project that has its
own verification label. It has a regulated and particular process for deciding
whether products can earn their namesake label and certifies companies’ claims.
But why avoid GMOs? Most require less water and pesticides
to flourish, helping the environment and increasing the amount of usable crops.
Some GMOs can be made to resist even the harshest of weather, including
drought-resistant crops, ensuring that some food will be available during a
difficult time or during a dry season. There are herbicide-tolerant crops that
allow farming companies to use no-till farming methods, reducing soil erosion
and runoff that would flow into rivers and local water systems. Certain GMOs
can reduce food waste by resisting bruising or other superficial effects of
travels. And of course, there are GMOs that have enhanced nutritional aspects,
creating healthier and more impactful crops, such as the well-known Golden
rice. This genetically modified rice has an abundance of Vitamin A and can be
used to aid in Vitamin A deficiencies that affect millions of children
worldwide.
The future with GMO science is equally as exciting. There is
the possibility of having more crops on the market that could have increased
health and environmental benefits, aiding all people. One in particular that
could be extremely useful is the creation of the hypoallergenic peanut.
In the end, it seems education on this topic is the best way
to decide opinions on whether or not to purchase GMO vs. Non-GMO. Either choice
should be researched and supported with science, not with societal fads.
References:
This is an interesting post. I did not know that the government non-GMO sticker was not regulated. I agree with your opinion on GMOs. I think they are important growing enough food for all of the people on the planet especially as some places that were formerly farm grounds become too dry to sustain traditional crops.
ReplyDeleteI would argue the fear of GMOs may not be a distrust of the underlying science itself so much as the opacity involved and the reputation of their main commercial proponents. While GMOs offer an almost fantastic ability to solve current and future problems related to our foods and environment, they still are often associated with companies such as Monsanto and the lack of trust and public support they often carry as baggage. With the recent discovery that Monsanto had been writing some of its own regulators’ reports, I can easily understand why anything they touch could make the public nervous. Unfortunately, corporate opacity really hinders our ability to benefit in such a case. In my own work, I’ve made GMOs to better address climate change and energy use, but that fact easily gets lost when the public’s advocate is caught as a puppet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how you included how GMOs can reduce food waste. I know that there are apples that take longer to brown and bruise resistant potatoes. These show the awesome capabilities of GM technologies and could potentially reduce waste. Up to 45% of fruits/vegetables are wasted in the U.S., so if the appeal of fruits/vegetables extended for a longer period of time or are resistant to bruising, I'm sure it would positively impact the gross amount of food waste.
ReplyDeleteGM crops are perfectly safe and that has been proven by many studies. Not only that, it's just common sense. All DNA gets broken with digestion/cooking anyway, so why even question its safety? In fact, humanity has been "genetically modifying" crops, livestock and virtually all pets for centuries. All modern agriculture is the result of artificial selection. So by streamlining this process we only get closer to resolving many issues that are pressing on humanity with the global overpopulation crisis.
ReplyDeleteWalking through a grocery store, I do recall seeing a lot of products stating that they're "Non-GMO". I never knew the FDA doesn't have a standard for these products. At least the Non-GMO Project has started their own verification process. In this way, consumers will at least know that a product is actually Non-GMO. However, I believe GM products provide multiple benefits, most to which cause little to no harm to a consumer. If consumers would do research on the topic, I think their attitudes would change regarding these foods.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, GMO's have been twisted to have a negative connotation because they are seen as "unnatural." Although they are unnatural, it's not a bad thing. GMO's are helping us in so many ways that they aren't given credit for.
ReplyDeleteI am going to be completely honest in saying that I've only ever heard basic arguments for either side in favor or against GMO products, so your post is definitely eye opening on the positives. I've been conditioned to thing anything genetically modified is bad and that natural foods are better, but I definitely see the benefits towards having these products now. Genetically modifying food brings in a whole new side of growing food that lasts longer, reaches more populations, and has better nutritional value. The environment is also impacted positively from what you are saying, but could there also be negative effects from introducing crops to regions that may not have supported them before but now can? I know that certain ecosystems may be disrupted if other living populations enter and alter the food chain, but would the same hold true for crops? It's a stretch, but something that should be considered playing the devil's advocate. As far as I can see, these are beneficial in many areas and should not be portrayed as negatively as they are in current media.
ReplyDelete