Molecular biology is not my strong suit. At my freaky, progressive high school I took the class, but students dubbed it “Science for Graduation,” which alludes to both the quality of the course and of our engagement in it. And maybe that is why I struggle to get my head around the whole GMO thing. Sold to consumers since 1994, GMOs are said to “cause cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control super weeds, genetic contamination, overuse of pesticides, the disappearance of butterflies and bees.” I understand the environmental impact. If the Potato Famine taught us anything it’s that genetically diverse crops are key to said crops’ survival, and ours (see I paid attention in some classes), so using one All Powerful Seed (trademark pending) is a bad idea. But why exactly are GMOs so bad for our health?
There are lots of urban myths around GMOs, few of which have been scientifically substantiated. The rat study, that seemed the go-to proof for many anti-GMO groups, was actually retracted from the journal where it was first published, because the sample size was too small to prove that GMOs were the cause of the rats’ tumors. And there is so much conflicting information about the allergy issue, it’s like wading through the transcripts of a political debate (how can everyone have opposing stats?). Yes, I agree the idea of ingesting viruses and bacteria on purpose seems ill advised (aka stupid). But we ingest fruit and veggies (non-GMOs) carrying plant viruses all the time. There has yet to be proof that GMOs cause health problems of any sort. I understand how easy it is to make the leap, but there is a vast difference between correlation and causation. The majority of information being disseminate on the topic is corollary evidence. Not to say we shouldn’t take that seriously, we should. We don’t really yet understand how altering the DNA of a plant can change its nutritional value. There needs to be so much more research done before people can know for sure either way.
The environmental issues though, are much easier to parse. If you genetically modify corn so it can withstand 15% more RoundUp dumped on it every year, then yes, you are asking for a super weed to take over the Midwest. The monarch butterfly’s larvae are effected by the pesticide in one particular GMO corn (which only approximates 2% of the corn grown in this country). But the mass quantities of herbicide, which kill off the Milkweed where the butterflies lay their eggs, is far more detrimental. GMOs as an entity aren’t to blame necessarily, but the company dumping the toxic herbicides on their crops is. Can GMOs be used for good? If they allow countries that have struggled to produce viable crops or yield anywhere near the volume they need to succeed, isn’t that good? Or does that just create more countries depending on unsustainable practices that will lead us into the Dead Zone, when all the bees die and we have a three-year long apocalypse?
I’m all for labeling. I like choice. I’m all for holding giant evil corporations responsible when they poison land (and people) with toxic chemicals. But I’m not sure that dismissing an entire category of scientific advancement is the way to go. Nor do I think allowing Monsanto to bulldoze their way through the world’s agricultural markets is OK either. Is there really only a high road and a low road? I’ll take my half of the lane in the middle, thanks.