Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.

We are 100% user-supported! Help and dona

e a small non-profit with no staff we are hundreds of volunteers who document with !
ld every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot
endas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in

e will meet our goal for 2018.

Donations so far: $1980Goal: $5000

Genetically modified food

Laws regarding GMF. "Banned" means a complete ban or for scientific purposes only. "Allowed" means
the bare minimum legal mechanisms where they could become legal to sell at some point. And no, the
fact that some countries ban something isn't a reason to ban it hereunless you would accept that
argument for homosexuality and freedom of religion.

The poetry of reality

Science

Extraordinary claims with

extraordinary evidence

Biology

Chemistry
 Physics

Hot from the

giants' shoulders

Brown dwarf

Dark flow

Dark matter

Goals of science

Mass (physics)

Michio Kaku

Science

Scientific
conference

Steven Dutch

v-t-e

Potentially edible!
Food woo

Fabulous food!

Gary Null

Geophagia

Raw foodism

Rooibos tea

Self help

Delectable diets!

Jesus diet
 Self help

Soy

Subway diet

Bodacious bods!

Fad diet

Human chorionic
gonadotrophin

Urban caveman
movement

v-t-e

Interviewer: Critics say, with genetically modified food we could end hunger. We could feed billions
of people that we currently are not. What do you respond to that?

Hippie #1: Uhh, yeah, we could feed billions of people, but they might grow four eyes, you know? I
mean YOU DON'T KNOOOW, you can't play with nature!
Hippie #2: What kind of people would they be? What kind of people would we be creating, you
know? You are what you eat!

Penn Jillette: ...Well, I guess she eats: shallow, hateful, self-centered bullshit! We can't imagine how,
but somehow these folks have forgotten that most people don't have the option of hopping on down to
the Piggly-Wiggly and bonding with the produce. When the whole world has plenty of food,
we'd love to hear this asshole's advice. But we're certainly not going to mistake it for information.

Penn & Teller: Bullshit![1]

Genetically modified food (more correctly,[note 1] genetically engineered food or transgenic food, and
often abbreviated as GM [genetically modified], GMO[genetically modified organisms],[note
2]
and GMF [genetically modified food]) is any food derived from organisms which had their genomes
modified using the technique of DNA recombination. Via DNA recombination, genetic material is
isolated from one organism and introduced into another. DNA recombination has the advantages that
the source and target organisms need not be sexually compatible and that transfer of genes can be
highly specific (introducing only a single desired trait), unlike conventional breeding, which requires
sexual compatibility and results in offspring with a mixture of traits from both parents.

Since the early 2000's[2] genetic modification has become a subject of intense debate. Opponents of
GMF claim that GMF production and consumption could have adverse environmental or health effects,
and that for-profit GMF companies (notably Monsanto) are screwing farmers and/or plotting to control
the world food supply. Some simply claim that GMF is inherently unnatural. Proponents of GMF claim
that GM technology has been the subject of a manufactroversy and accuse opponents of spreading
misinformation through the media.[3][4][5] Current scientific consensus is that GMF is as safe for human
consumption as organic food,[6] and as such the World Health Organization only requires standard
food safety assessment based on the Codex Alimentarius.[7] While nuanced criticism does exist,
opponents of GMF have an unfortunate habit of slipping into pseudoscience.

As of 2014, the countries with the highest GM crop areas were: United States (73 million
hectares), Brazil (42 million hectares), Argentina (24 million hectares), Canada (12 million hectares)
and India (12 million hectares).[8] The most frequently planted crops were corn (maize) (36 million
hectares), soy bean (32 million hectares), cotton (12 million hectares), and canola (8 million hectares).[8]

Contents

[hide]

1GMF traits

o 1.1Most common

o 1.2Less common

o 1.3New traits

o 1.4In development

o 1.5Limited/abandoned

2GMF impact on health

o 2.1Lack of independent testing

o 2.2Food allergies

o 2.3Cross-pollination and health

o 2.4Inherently bad

o 2.5Influence on rodents

o 2.6Cry1Ab protein in blood

o 2.7Scientific consensus

3GMO impact on environment

o 3.1Environmental impact of GM herbicide resistance

o 3.2Cross-pollination and the environment

o 3.3Lack of biodiversity

o 3.4"Terminator seeds" and the environment

o 3.5Environmental benefits of GMF

 o 3.6Influence on bees

o 3.7GMF and herbicide use

o 3.8Gene drives and GMOs

4GMFs and politics

o 4.1"Terminator seeds" and profit

o 4.2Cross-pollination and law

o 4.3GMF labelling

4.3.1In the U.S.

4.3.2In the European Union

5Deliberate Misinformation

o 5.1Farmer suicide in India

o 5.2Zambia

6In a nutshell

7Positions on GMO

o 7.1Pro-GMF

o 7.2GMF-Ambivalent

o 7.3Anti-GMF

7.3.1Films

8External links

9Notes

10References

GMF traits[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Genetic modification

So far, all GMFs on the market are plants. Genetically modified fish such as salmon have also been
developed, but food regulators have not yet approved these for farming and public
consumption.[9][dubious]

Since DNA recombination is a very powerful technique which allows for almost arbitrary modifications
to be introduced into the genome, GMF can have a variety of traits which are extremely unlikely to
occur in nature (but not impossible) and can not be obtained using conventional methods of breeding. It
is a way to short-circuit the millions of years of evolution and/or artificial selection which would be
required for the desirable traits to arise spontaneously. This includes resistance to pests, viruses and
herbicides, drought tolerance and improved nutritional value.

The majority of GMFs have one or more of the following traits:

Most common[edit]

The most common GM traits found in commercial crops focus on increasing yields by conferring
immunity to pests, weeds and diseases. These traits translate into easily quantifiable financial gains for
the farmer, so they were the first to be commercialized.

Herbicide tolerance (HT): This type of trait confers immunity to a herbicide,

typically glyphosate (also known as Roundup). Spraying with this herbicide kills the weeds
without affecting the HT crop. This allows the farmer to easily avoid tillage. Tillage is normally
done to control weeds, but accelerates soil erosion. HT crops usually require more herbicides
than traditional ones, but the broad spectrum herbicides used on HT crops are typically less
toxic than traditional selective herbicides,[citation needed] leading to a net reduction of the
environmental footprint. Corn[10], canola, soy, and sugar beets[11] are examples of common HT
crops.

Bt toxin production: Bt toxins are proteins produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis which are lethal to some species of insect pests, primarily moths and beetles. Bt
extract is often used as an insecticide in organic farming. When an insect attempts to feed off a
plant that produces a Bt toxin, it quickly dies. Bt crops require significantly less insecticides than
their traditional counterparts, and more importantly, kill onlythe insects that feed on the plant,
thus impacting the surrounding environment even less. Note that there are now several
different Bt toxin strains, each of which is lethal to a slightly different segment of the insect
population and each of which has its own tracking number assigned to it by the EPA.[12] Corn and
cotton[note 3] are examples of common Bt crops.

Less common[edit]

Virus resistance: By introducing genes coding for viral coat proteins, plants can be made
resistant to viruses. The best known example is the Rainbow variety of papaya, which is resistant
to the papaya ringspot virus (Potyvirus sp.) and is credited with saving the papaya farming
industry in Hawaii.[13] Unfortunately, the specific variety chosen to receive the ringspot virus
resistance transgene turned out to be vulnerable to blackspot fungus (Asperisporum caricae), so
now a second round of genetic modification is trying to breed in blackspot fungus resistance.
Other virus-resistant GM foods include yellow squash.[14]

Rennet production: The chymosin used in cheese making can be produced by genetically-
modified microorganisms. The gene for rennet production is taken from a ruminant animal (such
as a cow or goat) and inserted into a bacterium, fungus, or yeast, which will then produce
chymosin as it ferments nutrients. About 80% of cheese worldwide is made with such
Fermentation-Produced Chymosin.[15] This has benefits for anyone who might have issues
against eating meat or mixing milk and meat, as well as providing another source of rennet if we
ever have a need for it.
New traits[edit]

Starch breakdown: A GM corn strain called Enogen contains a transgene for alpha amylase, the
enzyme that breaks starch down into maltose. This reduces the amount of processing necessary
to turn it into ethanol.[16] As of mid-2014, Syngenta, the company that holds the patent on
Enogen, has embarked on an incentive program to encourage farmers to plant
it.[17] Theoretically, this trait would also reduce the amount of processing necessary to turn it
into corn syrup, but this possibility has not been commercially pursued.

Non-browning: The Arctic Apple[18] has the 4 genes that cause browning turned off. Since no
transgenes were spliced into the apple's genome, Okanagan Specialty Fruits proudly touts "no
frankenfood here!" (implying that they want to distance themselves from all those "nasty" GMF
producers). The Arctic Apple was approved for commercial sale in the U.S. by the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early 2015.

Improved handling characteristics: Simplot's harder-to-bruise Innate potato[19] was approved by

the USDA on 7-Nov-2014[20] and by the FDA on 20-March-2015[21]. McDonald's won't be using it
for their French fries or hash browns[22], but that's because there won't be enough available for
McDonald's to even consider using them for some time[note 4], not because of any executive
decision to reject GMOs.

In development[edit]

There are also many other possible traits in the research stage or awaiting regulatory approval.

Increased intrinsic yield: There is an ongoing research project called C4 Rice, which aims to
create rice which uses the more efficient C4 photosynthesis pathway from corn, rather than the
C3 photosynthesis native to rice.[23] The C4 pathway requires only the water as C3, meaning
C4 rice could be grown in hot semi-arid environments and provide a stable food supply even
during droughts. C4 plants also fix about an order of magnitude more CO2 than C3 plants, which
could offset quite a bit of harm. If it ever proves successful, it may open the door to creating
C4 wheat, C4 potatoes, C4 sugar beets, etc..

Nitrogen fixation: There is a project to achieve symbiosis between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and
cereals, a feature now restricted to legumes, which would obviate or significantly reduce the
need for artificial fertilizer in their cultivation.[24]

Disease resistance: This ranges from blight-resistant potatoes[25] to bananas resistant

to Fusarium wilt.[26]

Biofortified food: Biofortified food has increased nutritional value or contains essential
nutrients not present in traditional varieties. The best known example is Golden Rice, a
humanitarian project to develop rice containing vitamin A (beta-carotene) in order to prevent
vitamin A deficiency induced blindness in the developing countries.[27] Uganda is similarly
developing Golden Bananas.[28] Other biofortified food plants currently under development
include tomatoes containing anthocyanin (the antioxidant that makes blueberries
blue),[29] and soybeans containing omega-3 fatty acids.[30]
 Flood tolerance: A swarna rice cultivar incorporates the SUB1 gene from other rice varieties, so
that it can survive the erratic flooding in India and Bangladesh.[31] This trait wasn't introduced
transgenically, though; it was searched for among existing cultivars via marker-assisted
breeding. Basically, lots of rice was bred and the marker for the SUB1 gene was screened for in
each seed.[32]

Limited/abandoned[edit]

Sterility: Known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), or disparagingly known as

"terminator genes", this would render the plants sterile. There are two types: sterility, and
inactivation of genes if/unless exposed to some chemical. These have been abandoned in
agriculture by the biotech companies due to excessive backlash; instead, biotech companies
now have contracts requiring farmers to not save seed. Arguably in the event of a national
disaster, it's for the best that the supply chain is as simple as possible just in case, however there
are some legitimate uses. It's helpful if you need to make sure that the plant doesn't breed with
wild cousins, or if you want to make sure your crops don't sprout if they get wet. It does
however see some use outside of agriculture; mosquitos can be bred en masse with an
intentionally defective gene that only lets larvae survive in a lab. The defective mosquitos are
released into an environment and breed naturally with the local mosquitos, and the next
generation of mosquitos mostly die off.[33] This will only suppress the mosquito population for a
generation or so until it needs to be applied again, but so does spraying with DDT, and unlike
DDT, it only harms mosquitoes and there are fewif anyresidual effects decades after the
first application[34].

Frost resistance: One of the earliest attempts at producing a GMF involved taking the gene for
producing "anti-freeze" inside the winter flounder, and introducing it into a tomato. The hoped-
for resistance to frost didn't appear (plant sap and fish blood don't freeze the same way), and
the experiment was abandoned. This did not prevent legions of anti-GMF activists from using
the "fishmato" as their poster child for Frankenfood.

Delayed ripening: The now-discontinued Flavr Savr tomato. No fish genes.

Improved digestion: The "Enviropig"[35] was engineered to more efficiently digest plant
phosphorus, eliminating the need to feed it phosphorus supplements and reducing phosphate
pollution from the pigs' manure. It was discontinued in 2012.[36]

Altered starch characteristics: A GM potato strain called Amflora has the gene for amylose
production turned off. This makes its starch waxier, making it more useful in industrial
applications that call for amylopectin such as paper making. It was approved for industrial
applications by the European Union in 2010, but this approval was nullified in 2013.[37]

GMF impact on health[edit]

Several health concerns (some justified, some not) have been raised over GMFs.

Lack of independent testing[edit]

Concern exists over lack of independent testing of GMFs. FDA regulations require new GM strains to be
tested for things like allergen potential and toxicity, but these tests are allowed to be conducted by the
manufacturers (with FDA oversight), which may lead to biased studies. While the concern is valid
(striving for more studies furthers the scientific endeavor, whether GM or non-GM), the common
argument that GMFs are not subject to independent testing whatsoever is false.

In 2012, the non-profit organization Biology Fortified began compiling the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas
(GENERA), an ongoing project to catalog peer-reviewed studies regarding GM health risks. As of April
2014, there are approximately 1080 studies on the list, about one-third of which were conducted from
independently funded, non-manufacturer sources.[38]

Additionally, there are no regulations requiring the testing of new crop strains produced by non-GM
means, such as cross-breeding or induced mutation; thus, non-GM varieties are not tested at all.
Historically, this has resulted in the disastrous release into the marketplace of the Lenape potato[39] and
celery containing excessive psoralens.[40] To conclude, although testing that is funded by the
manufacturers is not ideal (independently funded studies reduce the introduction of many forms of
possible biases such as the sunk cost fallacy, confirmation bias, and/or bias blind spots), any testing is
better than no testing (also consider that manufacturers have a vested interest in protecting
their PR image, which when dealing with GMFs is already poisoning the well, and introducing harmful
products could damage that image quickly).

Food allergies[edit]

The rise in food allergies correlates to the rise of GMFs. A 2013 article in the popular world lifestyle
magazine, Elle, claimed that the author's apparent allergy to corn wouldn't have happened if our corn
wasn't genetically modified. This premise was criticized by many as being pseudo scientific as it lacked
any empirical evidence, and the article has since been called "particularly appalling" by Slate. [41]

All that can be said is correlation does not equal causation. The rise in allergies is a common
phenomenon in developed countries, even though the popularity of GMF varies wildly between them.
Furthermore, new proteins introduced by genetic modification are required to have short digestion
times in order to be found fit for human consumption, precisely because long-digestion proteins are
potential allergens. Starlink corn is a famous example of a GMF that was found unfit for human
consumption (long before it was brought to market as cattle feed) on this basis.[42]

Transgenic crops containing certain genes from other species can pose a serious food allergy risk if
unlabeled. A gene from a cold-water fish to give fruits frost resistance, can trigger a reaction in someone
allergic to sea food. [43] However, most transgenes code for proteins whose digestion times are too short
to trigger an allergic reaction.

A simpler explanation for the rise in food allergies is the increased variety of food available. Centuries
ago, people would only be able to eat what was grown locally; if you never saw a peanut in your
lifetime, how would you ever know if you were allergic? And if you were allergic to one of the few foods
available, well, dead people don't have allergies.

Cross-pollination and health[edit]

For cross-pollination and its relation to law, see Cross-pollination and law.

For cross-pollination and its relation to the environment, see Cross-pollination and the environment.
The health implications of cross-pollination between GMFs and non-GMFs planted on other farms
nearby have garnered some attention.

Starlink corn, a Bt corn variety using a different gene than Monsanto's, was declared unfit for human
consumption because one of the introduced proteins (Cry9C) had a long digestion time and was thus a
potential allergen. Starlink corn was, however, deemed fit for animal consumption, and was grown as
cattle feed. Soon thereafter, Cry9C proteins were found in foodstuffs that were deemed fit for human
consumption.[44] Pollen containing the Bt genes had apparently hopped the fence into neighboring
cornfields. While no cases of allergic reaction to Cry9C have been confirmed,[45] this raises the spectre of
other GM traits escaping isolation.

Inherently bad[edit]

The most prevalent claim is that all GMFs are harmful to health and cause a variety of illnesses and
disorders: cancer,[46] autism,[47] reproductive problems, infant mortality, liver problems and many other
things.[48]Some activists went as far as dressing up in Hazmat suits while destroying GMFs to make it look
as if researchers needed protection against the plants.[49]

Influence on rodents[edit]

Most GMF maize is commodity corn, i.e. corn not meant to be eaten directly but used as source for
starch. Although GMF maize is harmless for human and mammal consumption, paranoia
in China claimed that several models of Pioneer maize and soy is affecting the reproduction of rats and
Chinese pygmy hamsters and thereby affecting the food chain. This was due to a 2010 Russian study.[50]

Another study released in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, conducted by Gilles-Eric Sralini,
supposedly showed a link between GM maize and a higher incidence of cancer in the SpragueDawley
strain of rat.[51] The study was later retracted by the journal after a large amount of scientists protested
its poor quality and its "inadequate data to support its conclusions" (specifically that the sample size was
too small and the type of rat used was already prone to tumors)[52]. This latter retracted study is the one
most often cited to back the pseudoscientific claim that GMFs cause cancer.

Cry1Ab protein in blood[edit]

Some anti-GMF advocates have cited a study, "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to
genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada", which found traces of Cry1Ab (a
protein from pesticides incorporated into MON810 corn) in 93 per cent of the pregnant mothers and 80
per cent of the umbilical cords.[53][54] However, there are several issues with concluding that this is
because of GMF. First, organic crops are often sprayed with Cry1Ab.[55] Second, the recorded levels of
the protein would require ridiculous consumption of corn (up to 5.8 kg for the maximum recorded blood
level, and at minimum 120 g) every single day, since Cry1Ab does not bioaccumulate.[55] Third, the
authors recorded values lower than their minimum detection value, and their detection method is
flawed.[55][56][57] And finally, Cry1Ab is not, in fact, harmful.[55]

Scientific consensus[edit]

The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GMFs.[58] Any possible
harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health
Organization,[59]the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety
Agency, the International Council for Science,[60] the U.S. National Academies of Science,[61] and almost
all national scientific bodies. According to one metastudy which included 12 long-term studies and 12
multigenerational studies: "The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are
nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed."[62]

Scientists with anti-GMF positions are a tiny minority of researchers, many of them with ideological
and/or financial conflicts of interest.[note 5]

So far, all evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of safety of GMFs for human consumption.[63][64] A wide
variety of reputable organizations have stated that GMFs are safe to eat, including the US National
Academies of Sciences,[65] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[66] the European
Commission,[67] and many more.

After years of cultivation, there seem to be no adverse health impacts associated specifically with them,
and in some cases they can confer possible health benefits (e.g. Bt corn contains less carcinogenic fungal
toxins than regular corn, Golden Rice has beta carotene which normal rice lacks, etc.). The continued
insistence of anti-GMF activists that the science is uncertain is simply moving the goalposts.

Additionally, anti-GMF activists use the precautionary principle argument which states that as there
is negative proof of the harm of GE foods (i.e. there is no absolute, ultimate proof that GMF is safe),
GMFs should be opposed.[68][69] Arguments of this nature are invalid, as any given technology cannot be
proven to be safe in every possible imagined circumstance.

Some anti-GMF proponents have taken up the creationist tactic of listing supporters,[70][71] who often are
legal experts rather than scientists.

GMO impact on environment[edit]

Environmental concerns over GMO also exist. The scientific consensus over GMF crops and the
environment is not as clear-cut as the consensus on GMF and health.

Environmental impact of GM herbicide resistance[edit]

What is the impact on the environment where GM resistance leads to increased use of herbicides? So
far there is very little data suggesting a major increase in herbicide use, and this completely ignores how
glyphosate is far less toxic than many alternative herbicides (such as atrazine)meaning that increases
in the mass of herbicide used do not always translate to an increase in environmental impact. Sustained
glyphosate use and poor management practices have led to some weeds becoming resistant to the
herbicide.[72] Proper weed management practices and careful use of selective herbicides can help
mitigate this resistance.

The number of reported new cases of herbicide-resistant weeds has actually slightly decreased after the
introduction of GMFs. Out of the 24 known glyphosate-resistant species, 13 were actually first
documented in non-GMFs. As such, "superweeds" are a problem related to herbicide use and not
directly to GMF use.[73]

It's important to keep in mind what a "superweed" is. A "superweed" is a plant that's resistant to the
herbicide in use, allowing it to grow in the fields we'd rather use for crops, rather than a green monster
that will overwhelm the whole world. Much like "superbugs" in hospitals, acquiring resistance to an
herbicide is generally harmful to the plant if the herbicide is not present, as it requires the plant to
spend additional energy and materials producing the proteins or other chemicals it uses to endure the
herbicide, meaning "superweeds" are actually slightly weaker and less invasive than the, umm, garden
variety. Indeed, glyphosate-resistant crops themselves produce somewhat less than non-resistant
varieties in ideal conditions[74], but "a field full of weeds" is kind of the opposite of ideal.

Cross-pollination and the environment[edit]

For cross-pollination and its relation to health, see Cross-pollination and health.

For cross-pollination and its relation to law, see Cross-pollination and law.

What might happen if modified genes cross-pollinated (or, worse, transferred laterally) to other
organisms? For example, herbicide resistance could transfer to related weedy species, producing
herbicide resistant weedsobviously an undesirable outcome. Occurrence of this gene flow has been
confirmed in field studies,[75] but so far it's uncertain whether this is a serious concern or
not.[citation needed] It should be noted that herbicide resistance is not unique to GMFs (for instance,
imidazolinone-resistant canola was obtained using radiation breeding), nor does herbicide resistance in
weeds require gene flow to occur.

There are technologies available to prevent the spread of transgenes in the environment by making the
second-generation seed of GM plants sterile, but they are not used due to public opposition (see
"Terminator seed technology" below).

There is also a misconception about potential "superweeds", where a wild cousin acquires a trait and
the whole world is choking on canola/rapeseed. "Superweeds" are weaker than regular weeds as
herbicide resistance is a detriment to most plants; it causes the plants to use up energy to survive under
specific conditions, specifically when herbicide is present. Without the herbicide present, the tolerant
plants tend to be pushed out by the intolerant plants.

On the other hand, the newly introduced traits might disrupt the ecosystem surrounding a GMF field,
particularly when GMFs interbreed with wild relatives. This is not a problem unique to GMF crops; any
crop with a new trait could potentially spread to the wild, whether it arose through random mutation or
creation in a lab. There exists technology to prevent interbreeding, but it is not used due to its negative
public perception.[note 6]

Lack of biodiversity[edit]

When a GMF is first introduced, the seeds are usually derived from a single strain. If this crop becomes
immensely popular, you'll end up with multiple farmers planting one and only one strain of the crop,
leaving all of these new crops vulnerable to disease. This happened with the Rainbow papaya: the strain
chosen to receive the transgene for ringspot-virus resistance turned out to be vulnerable to the
blackspot fungus. The problem can be avoided by breeding the GM trait into several varieties using
conventional methods.

GMFs are not the only crops lacking biodiversity, nor is lack of biodiversity a new concern. The Great
Irish Potato Famine occurred largely because Irish farmers planted only the "lumper" strain of potatoes;
when the Potato Blight struck, it struck 'em all. McDonald's has long been criticized for its reliance on
the Russet Burbank strain of potatoes for its French fries, to the exclusion of other strains.
This would likely be less of a problem if more GMF companies were able to enter into the market
providing more variety of crops, or if the GMF crops could be allowed to hybridize with other strains. In
other words, it's a problem caused by the restrictions on GMF crops.

"Terminator seeds" and the environment[edit]

For "terminator seeds" and their relation to moneymaking, see "Terminator seeds" and profit.

A common myth is that the crops use "terminator seed" technology (technical name Genetic Use
Restriction Technology, GURT) which causes the crops to yield sterile seeds. However, while testing has
been conducted on GURT, there is actually a moratorium on its commercial use due to public
opposition.[76] Monsanto has also pledged not to use the technology.[77]

Despite all the propaganda, GURT is actually a good thing because it stops planted GMFs from
expanding into the wildone of the few realistic concerns about GMFs. Seeds that cannot be saved for
replanting are nothing new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, in wide use since the 1920s, do
not produce true copies in the second generation due to the existence of hybrid vigor. Therefore, new
seed must be bought every year from a plant breeder to keep its desirable characteristics.[78]

One of the few dangers of GURT would be in those rare cases if it were to fail. GURT is engineered as a
genetic trait, which means it can and will mutate, and a germline mutation that deactivates the GURT
geneplex would mean the seeds would be fertile. Were GURT actually implemented in real farms, the
farmers would have to maintain the same vigilance they do today against GM seed or pollen escaping
into the wild, just in case one of these deactivating mutations were to arise.

Vandana Shiva has claimed that GURT may somehow spread to wild plants and cause the total
destruction of the Earth's biosphere.[79] This is complete lunacy, since by definition sterility is not
inheritable.

Environmental benefits of GMF[edit]

Crops which are genetically modified to poison pests (such as Bt corn) reduce the need for pesticides to
be sprayed on them (up to 37 percent), which benefits the environment.[6] According to a decade-long
study conducted in China on Bt cotton, since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use was reduced by half
and the population of natural insect predators doubled (this is because the non-Bt insecticides that
would have otherwise been used kill harmful and helpful insects without discretion).[80]. Another study,
published in 2005 found that using GMF that poison pests reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
the need for pesticide spraying.[81] Additionally, GMF which is modified for no-till or reduced-till farming
systems (herbicide resistant crops) reduce the energy use in soil cultivation, again lowering overall
greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA has required some insect resistant crops be regulated like chemical
pesticides. [43] Developing countries see greater benefit to yields, and reductions in pesticide use, from
using genetically modified crops, giving complaints about them just a touch of classism.[6]

Some articles argue that the repression of GMF by the environmental movement is the real
problem.[82] At least one high-profile environmentalist has changed his anti-GMF stance as a result of
learning the actual science.[83] (Did he simply sell out to Monsanto? A lot of anti-GMF bloggers and sites
at the time thought so,[84] but evidence has not been forthcoming.)
GMF can of course be misused, and for this reason need oversight. However, after years of cultivation,
there seem to be no adverse impacts associated specifically with them, and in many cases they confer
significant environmental benefits. The continued insistence of anti-GMF activists that the science is
uncertain is simply moving the goalposts.

Influence on bees[edit]

There are also claims that Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops are responsible for bee deaths and colony
collapse disorder (CCD). This is false.

Bt toxin is harmful to some Lepidoptera (butterflies / moths) and Coleoptera (beetles) which feed
directly on the plant, though several strains are becoming resistant to Bt toxinand even then, the
effects on butterflies is not significant and quite negligible.[85][86] Beetles and certain species of
butterflies tend to be pests themselves, after all, and were the target of the Bt toxin in the first place.

Bt toxin is not at all harmful to bees, which are in the order Hymenoptera. A meta-analysis of 25 studies
found that there is no detectable harm to bees arising from the use of Bt crops.[87] In fact, imidacloprid, a
pesticide used on corn crops, is toxic to bees; and the whole point of Bt corn crops is that they need to
be sprayed with less pesticide. And a meta-analysis has confirmed this.[88]

Note that traditional pesticides also kill butterflies and beetles, and that the Bt toxin is also used as a
pesticide on both conventional non-GMF crops and organic crops. Some evidence however, has shown
that Bt maize does cause slight learning disturbances in bees.[89] However, this effect has only been
detected with concentrations of Bt toxin at 5000 ppb, and it's unlikely for this effect to show in natural
conditions.[90]

GMF and herbicide use[edit]

A 2012 study by Chuck Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University's Center for
Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, has concluded that the proliferation of genetically
modified herbicide-tolerant crops led farmers to increase herbicide use to combat weeds resistant
to Roundup.[91][92][93][94] Furthermore, before the introduction of genetically modified crops, farmers had
to carefully use herbicides in order not to kill the plants. People are still concerned with herbicide
residue in their food, but both GM and organic farms use herbicides in the United States. However, GM
farms have seen a reduction in pesticide use.[95]Research done by scientists from the Georg-August-
University of Goettingen discovered, "On average, GM technology has increased crop yields by 21%.
These yield increases are not due to higher genetic yield potential, but to more effective pest control
and thus lower crop damage. At the same time, GM crops have reduced pesticide quantity by 37% and
pesticide cost by 39%."[6]

Gene drives and GMOs[edit]

GMO gene drives are currently in an experimental stage, with none yet released into the wild. Gene
drives rely on insertion of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene into an organism, which has the potential to insert a
gene into an entire breeding population.[96] Potential applications of gene drives are:[96]

Immunizing animals that carry human disease (e.g. malaria mosquitoes)

Controlling insect-borne diseases

 Spreading pest-specific pesticides and herbicides

Reducing populations of rodents and other pests

Controlling invasive species

Aiding threatened species

But unforseen ecosystem consequences could also arise.[96]

GMFs and politics[edit]

Even if GMFs are relatively safe to humans and the environment, it's possible that their use might harm
someone legally or financially; such risks exist but are routinely overblown.

"Terminator seeds" and profit[edit]

For "terminator seeds" and their relation to the environment, see "Terminator seeds" and the
environment.

Anti-GMF activists often say that GMF seeds are infertile.[97] This refers to Genetic Use Restriction
Technology, dubbed "terminator seed", which renders the second generation seed of a plant infertile.
(See "Terminator seed technology" above.) This would prevent the farmer from saving seed, which
currently is a requirement enforced using legal means.

GURT was never commercialized and work on it was abandoned in 1999,[98] largely due to public
backlash instigated by the anti-GMF campaigners. Ironically, it would solve one of the few real problems
with GMFs, namely the transfer of GM traits into wild relatives. It would also enable the safe use of GM
plants to produce pharmaceutically active compounds.[99]

Cross-pollination and law[edit]

For cross-pollination and its relation to health, see Cross-pollination and health.

For cross-pollination and its relation to the environment, see Cross-pollination and the environment.

What are the legal implications of cross-pollination between GMFs and non-GMFs planted on other
farms nearby? While activists commonly claim that biotech companies (like Monsanto) will sue farmers
for accidental contamination via cross-pollination, such lawsuits have not happened. In 2012, a group of
organic farmers preemptively sued Monsanto for this very reason, but their case was thrown out when
they were unable to present any evidence that supported their claims.[100] It is unlikely that any judge
would rule in favor of Monsanto in such a case, because the farmer would not obtain any undue benefit
from the patented seeds.

Percy Schmeiser's case is often used as an example by activistsbut the court found that he
intentionally selected for GM traits in canola pollinated from a neighboring field by spraying his own
field with glyphosate, which killed off all of his plants but left the pollination-planted ones intact, and
then used the seed on his farm, planting a total of approximately 1,030 acres with the seed. Schmeiser
attempted to claim that he was innocent and that the glyphosate-resistant crops appeared on his fields
via pollination or from a passing truck's spillage, but the judge pointed out that all 1,030 acres were
planted with glyphosate-resistant canola at a purity of 95-98%, far beyond the 0.5-2% typically seen
from accidental contamination. Furthermore, the fact that Schmeiser intentionally sprayed glyphosate
on his crops betrayed his knowledge of the seed, since glyphosate will kill any non-resistant plants.
Monsanto won the lawsuit, but Schmeiser mounted a massive misinformation campaign online, which
has led to a great many people being unaware of the true facts on this case.[101]

GM traits are usually patented. While this draws a lot of criticism, this situation is in fact not any
different from conventional breeding, where novel traits are also patentable.[102] "Plant patents" have
been protected by U.S. law since 1930. Several patents on first-generation GM traits have run out, or are
due to run out in the near future; the patent for first-generation RoundUp Ready soybean seeds, for
example, expired in 2015.

GMF labelling[edit]

Laws exist, and have been proposed, which require foods containing GM ingredients to be labelled in
some manner. The proponents of such labelling laws are mostly anti-GMF activists for whom labelling
laws are but a first step.[103] The opponents assert that such laws would make "no GMFs!" labels into
selling points for a gullible public (much like "all natural!" labels do today), and would give no useful
information about which genetic modifications are and aren't present. The forced labeling in of itself will
also carry a negative stigma associated with GMF; think about the difference in sub-conscious
perception it would make if there was a label denoting that the food was packaged by immigrants. The
irony is that GMO labeling actually increases consumer trust in GMO food products.[104]

It would seem that many Americans would support the idea of GM labeling. That said, when asked, 80
percent of Americans said they wanted food to be labled if it contained DNA.[105] As just about all food
from whatever source is going to contain DNA this tends to suggest that the pro-label lobby is perhaps
not the most scientifically literate.

In the U.S.[edit]

Until July 2016, there were no mandatory labeling requirements for GMFs at the federal level in the
United States. There were, however, State laws in Vermont[106], Maine,[107] and Connecticut, which
would have imposed labelling requirements on GM foods sold in those states if and when they went into
effect.

In response, a bill called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives in July of 2015, which would have prohibited individual States from imposing their own
GM food labelling requirements.[108] GM food opponents called this bill "Denying Americans the Right to
Know," or the DARK Act.[109]. It passed the House, but was blocked by the Senate.

A later compromise to the above bill, titled only "S. 764", passed the House and Senate and was signed
into law on 29 July, 2016. This law, christened "the DARK Act 2.0" by its opponents, mandates GMO
labels but allows the information to be contained in QR codes (2-D barcodes that can't be read without
the aid of a smartphone or similar device). It may also permit some loopholes for certain classes of GM
food,[110] and voids all state-level GMO labelling laws.

In the European Union[edit]

European Union has very strict GMF labeling laws, mandating that every ingredient of the product that
was produced from genetically modified organisms must be labelled, even if it contains no DNA and is
chemically indistinguishable from its non-GMF counterpart (e.g. oils, lecithin, and sugar). Labeling is also
mandatory in restaurant menus. Combined with the very high level of anti-GMF activity in Europe and
the fact that only two GM traits have been approved for local cultivation (one variant of Bt corn, and
[formerly] the Amflora potato), this results in GMF being basically impossible to buy.

Labeling in Europe is not required for the meat, eggs and milk of animals fed with GMFs. Most European
poultry and pigs are in fact fed GM cereals imported from the United States, as this is significantly
cheaper than feeding them locally grown non-GM grain.

A common claim about European labeling laws is that cultivating GMFs in some area would
automatically require honey produced in the same area to be labeled as genetically modified, because
honey contains trace amounts of pollen (less than 0.5%). Given the anti-GMF hysteria, the label would
make such honey potentially unmarketable in Europe. However, this is no longer true, as the rules were
recently clarified; pollen is now considered as a "natural constituent" rather than an "ingredient" of
honey, and so it only needs to be labelled if the honey contains more than 0.9% of GM
pollen.[111] Previous ruling from the European Court of Justice stipulated that pollen is an "ingredient"
and therefore needs to be included on the ingredient list, and a label must be included if more than
0.9% of the pollen is genetically modified.

Deliberate Misinformation[edit]

Misinformation on the subject is harmful. People who would otherwise be fed are starved, being
deprived of food being destroyed just because it is GMF.[112][113][114]

Farmer suicide in India[edit]

Some anti-GMF activists, like Vandana Shiva, claim that Bt cotton in India ruins small farmers and drives
them to suicide. Bt cotton in India is not a substantial factor in farmer suicides,[115] which started rising 5
years before its introduction.[116] In fact, a long-term study on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India
showed that Bt cotton has increased yields, profits, and the living standards of smallholder
farmers.[117][118][119]

Zambia[edit]

The most controversial instance of opposition to GMF is probably the case of Zambia. In 2002, the
Zambian government opted to let its people starve in the midst of a region-wide crop failure by turning
down a vast quantity of food aid in the form of GM corn, rather than feed them "GM poison".[120][121]

In February 2016, a similar crisis is shaping up to happen in Zimbabwe.[122]

In a nutshell[edit]

[show]Why are GMOs Bad? (SciShow)

[show]The Unpopular Facts about GMOs (inFact)

[show]GMOs (Healthcare Triage)

[show]Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food (Kurzgesagt)

Positions on GMO[edit]

Pro-GMF[edit]

Aaron E. Carroll Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Dean for Research Mentoring at Indiana
University School of Medicine, and the director of the Center for Health Policy and
Professionalism Research. And more. A damn good doctor, in other words.[123] Dedicates an
episode of Healthcare Triage to debunking GMO fears.[124]

Ben Goldacre Doctor, skeptic and science writer.[125]

Bill Nye Credits good science with proving to him that a pro-GMO stance is the rational
option.[126]

Brian Dunning Skeptic, podcaster and regular debunker of woo as the host of his YouTube
sceptic show, inFact.[127] Dedicates an episode of inFact to debunking GMO fears.[128]

Professor Brian Cox. British science communicator.[129]

Kevin Folta plant science professor who gives biotech talks to lay audiences.

Calestous Juma Internationally recognised authority in the application of science and

technology to sustainable development worldwide.[130]

Hank Green Badass science popularizer and a B.S. in Biochemistry from Eckerd College and
a M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana.[131] Dedicates an episode
of SciShow to debunking GMO fears.[132]

Mark Lynas British environmentalist, journalist, and author. Formerly anti-GMF, he has since
switched his position, 'cause science.[133]

Michael Shermer Author and skeptic extraordinnaire.[134]

Neil deGrasse Tyson "[Utilizing genetic modification] is what all organisms do when they can,
or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct."[135][136]

Norman Borlaug Credited as the father of the Green Revolution. Specifically via GMF, he is
widely credited with having saved a billion lives.[137][138]

PZ Myers Associate professor of biology, blogger and scientist.[139]

Patrick Moore not that one, the one that co-founded and now criticizes Greenpeace[140]

Penn & Teller Famous illusionists and avid sceptics. Pro-GMO because saving lives, nevermind
by the billions, is not bullshit.[141]

Richard Dawkins Evolutionary biologist.[142]

Steven Novella Senior Fellow and Director of the JREFs Science-Based Medicine project.[143]
 The Royal Society Learned society for science, and is possibly the oldest such society still in
existence.[144]

GMF-Ambivalent[edit]

Massimo Pigliucci Philosopher, author and skeptic.[145]

World Health Organisation - Specialized agency of the United Nations that is concerned with
international public health.[146]

Oxfam - Believes a 'simple technological fix' is unlikely to solve world hunger. A farmer's lack of
access to food or power over food production are seen as more pressing concerns for food
security. [147]

Anti-GMF[edit]

Alex Jones Not at all known for predictably siding with the "wrong" camp on any issue. Sells
various[148][149][150] popular anti-GMO DVD's, all of them of the pseudoscientific, historical
revisionist and conspiratorialflavour.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine - Overtly pro-pseudoscience group of

physicians.[151]

The Center for Food Safety, which isn't at all interested in actual food safety.

David Icke Confirming the reptilian deception fueling the pro-GMO agenda.[152]

Deepak Chopra Quantum woo specialist and notable woo pusher.[153]

FoodBabe Purveyor of various food myths and other bullshit. Proudly featured
on InfoWars,[154] she has since officially teamed up with Alex Jones on the issue.[155]

Gilles-Eric Sralini - Published a study claiming Roundup Ready corn causes cancer.

Greenpeace International environmentalist organization which campaigns against

GMF.[citation NOT needed]

Irina Ermakova Published a flawed study claiming Roundup Ready soy causes reproductive
problems.

Jane Goodall The chimp lady.[156]

Jeffrey Smith Woo promoter who runs the Institute for Responsible Technology.

John Fagan Head of the multinational for-profit testing company Global ID/Genetic ID.

Judy Carman Published a flawed study claiming GM maize and soy inflames pig stomachs.

Michael Pollan American journalist and author.

NaturalNews Nuff said. Seriously.[citation NOT needed]

 Organic Consumers Association "Animal studies link the consumption of GMOs to an increase
in allergies, kidney and liver disease, ADHD, cancer, infertility, chronic immune disorders and
more".[157]

Prince Charles Slightly odd heir to the British Throne.[158]

Stephanie Seneff Co-authored a study claiming the glyphosate used on RoundUp-Ready crops
causes gut problems and worse.[159]

Union of Concerned Scientists Ideologically fueled organization that "has no respect

for scientific consensus in areas where real scientists conflict with its biases".[160]

Vandana Shiva Crank environmentalist who would infamously "rather have her people
in India starve than eat bioengineered food."[161]

Bioscience Resource Projects biosafety analysis of genetic engineering

techniques [162] [163] challenge two key assumptions that underlie both current GMO regulation in
the U.S.[164] and the claims of proponents of genetic engineering worldwide:[165] (1) that genetic
engineering is a precise and predictable technique and (2) that unintended consequences
resulting from the genetic engineering process are highly unlikely.[166]

Films[edit]

The World According to Monsanto, anti-GMF film by French investigative journalist Marie-
Monique Robin

Food, Inc, another anti-GMF film (although also about other stuff) but from a left-wing point of
view

GMO A Go Go, a libertarian flavored anti-GMF propaganda film

GMO OMG, a hard green anti-GMF propaganda film

Seeds of Death, a right-wing anti-GMF propaganda film

External links[edit]

Whats the latest on genetically modified foods? (2014), from Cecil "Straight Dope" Adams

GMO Skepti-Forum, a closed Facebook group for the scientific discussion of GMFs

GMOLOL, an open Facebook group for laughing at anti-GMF hysteria

Notes[edit]

1. Jump up The genomes of nearly all important crops are heavily modified with respect to their
wild ancestors through the process of selective breeding and in many cases also by other
techniques such as hybridization and mutation breeding, so using the term "genetically
modified" specifically to label recombinant organisms is something of a misnomer.