# Are GMOs Good or Bad?
Genetic Engineering & Our Food
OBJECTION
Let's start with one of the most common objections to GMOs.
Gene flow, meaning GM crops could mix with traditional crops and introduce
unwanted new characteristics into them. There is a method that might guarantee complete
prevention, but is a big anti-GMO argument by itself.
Terminator seeds. The idea is that they could produce sterile plants, requiring farmers
to buy new seeds every year. The very concept of this, however, caused a public outcry,
stopping the technology being put to use.
This brings us back to the unintentional spreading of engineered DNA. There have been
cases of GMOs growing where they weren't planted, and traces of modified genes found in
foreign crops. But GM plants can't run wild entirely. Many crops pollinate themselves, and all
crops have to be related to mingle. There are also cultural methods like buffer zones, to keep
unintentional crossing at a minimum.
But if it's possible in principle that a GMO could unintentionally cross with a non-
GMO, there's actually a more important question.
Is food that comes from GM crops different to food from non-GM crops? This question
has been a major concern from the very beginning. GM plants that are destined to be eaten are
checked for possible dangers, and the results are evaluated by multiple agencies. After more
than 30 years and thousands of studies, science is in. Eating GMO plants is no riskier than their
non-GMO equivalent. But don't just take our word for it, the sources for this and other claims
are in the video description.
But what about plants that have been engineered to be toxic? For example, BT crops. A
gene borrowed from the bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis, lets engineered plants produce a
protein that destroys the digestive system of specific insect pests. The plant makes its own
pesticide. Insects that eat it die. That sounds alarming! Pesticide sprays could be washed off. the
poison in BT crops is inside the plant. But actually, it's not a big deal. Poison is really just a
question of different perspectives. What's harmless to one species, might kill another. Coffee,
for example, is a poison that kills insects but is harmless to us. Or take chocolate, it's dangerous
for dogs but a pleasure for humans. BT crops produce a protein that is tailored to the specific
design of the digestive tract of certain insects; it's completely harmless for us.
There's also the opposite approach. Plants that are engineered to be resistant to certain
weed killers. This way, farmers can use them widely, killing the other plants competing for
resources without harming the crop. Here, we get to the dark underbelly of GMOs. For the
pesticide industry, they are big business. Over 90% of all cash crops in the US are herbicide
resistant, mostly to glyphosate. As a result, the use of glyphosate has increased greatly. That
isn't only bad, glyphosate is much less harmful to humans than many other herbicides. Still, this
means famers have a strong incentive to rely on this one method only, casting more balanced
ways of managing weeds aside. That's one of the most fundamental problems with the GMO
debate.
Much of the criticism of this technology is actually criticism of modern agriculture and
the business practice of the huge corporations that control our food supply. This criticism is not
only valid, it's also important. We need to change agriculture to a more sustainable model.
GMOs as technology are actually an ally and not an enemy in that fight, helping to save and
protect nature and minimize our impact on the environment.
POSITIVE EXAMPLE
Let's look at some positive examples.
Eggplant is an important crop in Bangladesh but often, whole harvests are destroyed by
pests. Farmers had to rely heavily on pesticides. Not only was this very expensive, farmers also
frequently got sick.
The introduction of a new GM eggplant in 2013 stopped this.
The same BT protein we talked about before, an effective killer of insects but harmless to
humans, was engineered into them.
This reduced insecticide use on eggplants by more than 80%. The health of farmers improved,
and their income rose dramatically.
And sometimes, the GM approach is the only option.
In the 1990s, the papaya industry in Hawaii was under attack from the ringspot virus which
threatened to wipe out Hawaiian papaya. The solution was a papaya genetically modified to be
vaccinated against the virus. Without it, the state's papaya industry would have collapsed.
FUTURE APPLICATION
All these stories show a very narrow application. 99% of all GMOs we use right now
produce pesticides or are resistant against them.
There is so much more we could do. The scientists are working on GMOs that could improve
our diet. Plants that produce more or different nutrients, like fruit with higher antioxidant levels
that help to fight diseases or rice with additional vitamins.
On a larger scale, we're trying to engineer plants more resilient to climate change,
plants that can better adapt to erratic weather and adverse soil conditions, making them resistant
to droughts or floods.
GMOs could also not only reduce agriculture's impact on the environment, but actively
help to protect it. Scientists are working on crops that can draw nitrogen from the air, like
microbes. Nitrogen is a common fertilizer, but its build-up pollutes the ground water and speeds
up climate change. Plants that collect their own nitrogen could fix two problems at once.
00:07:29.440 The overuse of fertilizers in the developed world, as well as the shortage of it in
developing countries. We could even modify plants to become super-effective carbon
collectors, like the American chestnut tree, to mitigate and actually reverse climate change.
With the tools we have today, our imagination is the limit.
CONCLUSION
The world eats 11 million pounds of food every day.
A UN estimate suggests we'll need 70% more by 2050.
We could grow that food by clearing more and more forests to create fields and pastures and by
using more pesticides. Or we find a way to do it on the land we've got right now, with more
effective methods like GM crops. Intensifying farming instead of expanding it means GMOs
could become the new organic.
In a nutshell, GMOs have the potential to not only drastically change agriculture but to also
dampen the effects of our own irresponsible behavior. GMOs could be our most powerful
weapon to save our biosphere.