Probably all of us know about the GMO issues, pro and con. How should they influence our planting as home gardeners? Or should they influence us at all? Some foods regularly appear in the grocery store labeled as “non-GMO,” generally in large fonts. You may also notice the same thing regarding seeds for planting in your own garden. I think the name “genetically modified organism” turns people off – sort of like a Frankenstein food.
As a home vegetable grower, I subscribe to the precepts of gardening organically. I also agree that non-GMO foods should be labeled as such; consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to favor such foods. But I wonder about the facts of the issue. I live in a semi-rural area (nearby farm shown above) where local farmers point out that several years ago, when there was a drought, had it not been for GMO corn that was bred to withstand dryness, there simply would have been very little corn produced. And with climate change likely causing more frequent spells of drought, wouldn’t these types of crops become more critical? As a side benefit, GMO crops require fewer chemicals to realize their higher yields. That’s something we can applaud.
So are GMOs bad news? There appears to be a great deal of fear mongering connected with this question. Having no skin in the game as a gardener, but as a food consumer, I decided to read articles both pro and con to learn more. Plant breeding as a science really began in the mid-19th century with Gregor Mendel’s experiments on peas. In predictably determining the traits of an organism he ascribed variations to the actions of invisible “factors” (now known as “genes”). So a type of genetic engineering is not totally new.
Scientific American magazine points out that: “The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques – which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another – genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result.”
One of the more strident anti-GMO vibes comes from Organic Life magazine (which, I hasten to add, also publishes a horoscope in each issue). Greenpeace has been particularly vocal against GMOs, and was singled out in a June 2016 letter signed by 129 Nobel laureates urging the organization to re-examine and abandon their campaign against GMOs. The main anti-GMO argument seems to be that consumption of these genetically engineered foods could cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics. However, no reliable proof of this is presented.
Antipathy toward GMO foods strengthens the stigma against a technology that has delivered enormous benefits, especially to people in developing countries. Here’s an example, again from Scientific American: “To curb vitamin A deficiency …. researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Approximately three quarters of a cup of Golden Rice provides the recommended daily amount of vitamin A; several tests have concluded that the product is safe. Yet Greenpeace and other anti-GMO organizations have used misinformation and hysteria to delay the introduction of Golden Rice to the Philippines, India and China.”
The drawback of GMO foods is that their saved seeds cannot be planted with the expectation that they will come true, or even reliably germinate. This becomes a problem in such areas as Africa and the Caribbean where subsistence level farmers habitually save some seeds from current produce for planting in the following year. For us home gardeners, that isn’t an issue. We generally purchase our seeds anew every year.
One of the highest priorities for why we grow our own foodstuffs is to avoid the chemicals applied before and after harvest. For example, the reason why you don’t find potatoes in the supermarket growing eyes is because they’re sprayed with a chemical to keep them from sprouting. I grow my own potatoes and have concluded that whether or not my spud varieties are GMO is immaterial. While foods sold as non-GMO are said to be generally free from applied chemicals that can potentially be life-threatening, this is irrelevant to the issue of how GMO crops themselves are created. Obviously, GMO foods can also be free of applied chemicals.
Admittedly, my perusal of the topic was far from exhaustive, but I tried to find reputable sources. A Midwestern bias may be showing. I can’t help but place considerable weight on the experience of those in the trenches: the farmers themselves. If you choose to steer clear of GMO foods, that should be your option, but it seems that the anti-GMO message is replete with so much speculation and pseudo-science that the general public is being ill-advised and needlessly biased.
Thanks for this balanced reporting on GMOs. I believe the bad rap about GMOs was fueled by the development of crop seeds that enable indiscriminate spraying of pesticides on agricultural crops. The fault lies with the pesticides, not with the use of GMO technology that has the potential to address many challenging issues, such as drought and climate change. People now associate “organic” with both absence of pesticides and GMO technology. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water, so to speak.
[Edited to remove most offensive parts]. Firstly, I am an actual organic farmer, which I have been professionally for the last 13 years. This article is absolute bullshit! In fact, I will go on to say that the writer is a poser pretending to be an organic farmer.
Secondly, conventional farming with chemical herbicides/pesticides and fertilizers increases your need and use of fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides. If that was not a fact we would be continuously using less of these products annually, not more. After years of use farmers are left more dependent on them with lower yields each consecutive year. Don’t lie. We hate liars!!!
Thirdly, RoundUp is an antibiotic. To say that herbicides/pesticides do not lead to antibiotic resistance is a bold-faced lie. Again, we hate liars.
Fourthly, anyone who claims that they are an organic farmer and adds a ‘but’ as the next word in their sentence that then defends chemical farming, is a bold-faced liar, [more insults]. We can see an industry mouthpiece by daylight. Go kick rocks. [More insults]. How much did you get paid by the chemical farming industry for this piece of shit article? [More.]
I think the train is going off the rails here. The subject was GMOs … not chemicals. I agree with Milliontrees that the two subjects can be intertwined but are not necessarily the same. If I use organic fertilizers and compost on the veggies I grow in my garden and forswear chemical pesticides, I believe that qualifies me as an organic gardener wannabe, despite the fact that maybe I am using some GMO seeds. I don’t choose to get involved in a diatribe about chemical usage. That’s a whole different subject, and I don’t have the cred to explore it in the detail it deserves.
I agree that genetic modification is just a tool like any other with variable outcomes dependent on the respective genes and crops involved as well as cultural practices.
The gene for round up resistance isn’t directly creating the downstream effects people are worried about such as reducing milkweed prevalence and therefore affecting the monarch population. It’s the unintended consequence of liberal use of glyphosate rather than the crops themselves being GMO.
Every gene and plant have to be evaluated independently for downstream effects. I think it’s comparable to how introduction of new plant species could lead to invasiveness and ecosystem disruption, yet many introduced plant species are both beneficial and non invasive.
I think the main issue with saving GMO seeds has to do with patents and lawsuits from the corporations that patented the edited gene rather than the edited genes being inherited in an unstable pattern.
I’m hopeful that genetic modification will be put to greater use against plant pathogens and insect vectors which are spreading around the world at an alarming rate.
Genetically modified papayas resistant to the ring spot virus saved Hawaii’s papaya growers and without restrictive and costly patents.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2015/01/learn-about-how-public-sector-scientists-saved-papaya/
This sounds very simple, full of common sense. GMOs are a mixed bag, like everything in life. “You pays your money and you takes your choice”.
The problem is genetically modified “RoundUp Ready” crops, which allows farmers to spray RoundUp and its equivalents on crops to kill weeds while the crop is actively growing. RoundUp is systemic, being taken up by the plant and dispersed thoughout the entire plant. Used on weeds in itself is not the problem, but we were never meant to EAT it. It is showing up in children’s cereals and breast milk. We have no idea what the consequences will be 20 years from now.
I think it would be more efficacious to label foods according to their exposure to chemicals. Roundup is claimed to become inert in the soil, but that’s not totally true. Maybe a label such as “Free of applied chemicals” would be helpful, whether or not the food is a GMO. There are some chemicals that supposedly are benign, such as Pyrethrin which is made from an extract of Chrysanthemums. But being specific about the chemicals would probably only confuse people.
I thought this rant dealt with an important issue very superficially. Mr Kramer doesn’t have any credentials (except as a dirt farmer which I’m not sure what that is) to assure me that he has selected the best articles or information to offer informed opinions. He glosses over cons to GMO such as the unreliability of GMO seeds to breed true to the original. What really surprised me was the audacity to offer hearsay evidence from a group of other (unidentified) “dirt” farmers about the efficacy of using GMO corn seed bred to offer “dryness” resistance in an area experiencing drought. Was the “drought” one season, two or one out of every three? I’m glad that science has progressed so far in the Midwest …it’s this naïveté that convinces me to stick to my principles where GMO products are concerned.
Many seeds do not breed true to the original, including all hybrids that have been bred over the years to resist diseases, produce more quickly, take up less space, etc. Any seed that is formed by the introduction of pollen from a different variant will be different than the original. GMOs just speed up the process of breeding. Oh, and by the way, you may stick to your “principles”, but that does not mean that the rest of us are “naïve” because we do not agree with yours.
Many of us are coming from the same place as Jack. We want to understand the issue, discuss it, and de-escalate the zealotry that has magnified good points on both sides. It seems to me that Jack is inviting a discussion, not closing it down, and is open to reasonable arguments and evidence. It’s an opportunity to add to that discussion with links and thoughts, not condescension.
To my mind, “Sticking to one’s principles” about a certain technology is exceptionally anti-scientific. Science isn’t about principles, it’s about curiosity and rigorous study. It’s about being wrong and moving forward to find truth. And of course in the midst of all the good and the bad and the true and the false in this GMO debate is the extraordinary amount of money involved in these technologies, and how that fundamentally changes the marketplace — and the options of everyday farmers. An extremely nuanced topic, and I hope more readers will weigh in. Thank you for bringing it up Jack. – MW
Jack,
You’e a brave man. I applaud your common sense approach regarding GMO issues. It’s a sacred totem amongst some factions. No doubt, you’ll receive some ad hominem attacks (instead of discussion of the actual issues).
One of the most balanced, realistic articles I’ve read on the subject. If you take one of the mRNA vaccines you probably become a GMO yourself.
I’m another supporter of the good that can be done by genetic modification. I read about this in Science magazine, then found this article more accessible:
http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/ghana-scientist-turns-to-gene-editing-to-improve-sweet-potato-crop/
Whew-eee. This is a deep and controversial topic for sure! My main problem with GMOs is actually not the science but the law and politics of it. Obviously farmers can’t save GMO seed, but as mentioned, many hybrids also do not come true from seed so that’s not a new issue. I have read some concerning information about farmers being sued because of being downwind of GMO crops that pollinated their non-GMO crops. I’ll post some links below.
I think this is another instance where society hasn’t caught up with technology. If we can’t use GMO crops in a way that is fair to everyone in society it isn’t the fault of GMO technology, it’s the fault of of how we are handling them as a society. We need to take a step back and reevaluate what we are doing with this promising technology, and what the implications of that are.
https://careydanis.com/class-actions/gmo-corn-seed-lawsuit-farmers/
https://farmoffice.osu.edu/blog-tags/organic-seed-growers-and-trade-association-v-monsanto
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/30/farmer-liable-for-growing-biotech-crops/e4d32d97-a3d8-4ab7-9f69-d49bcc88198a/
Oh, Dear. Tim Loe, what a rude reply . . . plus an ample supply of inaccuracies.
RoundUp is not an “antibiotic”; nor is it a bacteria or a germ. Of course, there is debate about its long term use and potential impacts. Regardless, you are misusing the term, “antibiotic”.
Nor does GMO seed or produce necessarily mean that RoundUp, or other herbicides or pesticides were used more, or, at all, in growing. Maybe, but as the OP points out, that choice is separate from whether GMO seed is planted.
GMO breeding can have attributes other than making plants less susceptible to RoundUp. An example is genetically breeding a plant to better survive higher growing temperatures. Jack used the example of GMO seed surviving dryness better.
I add that people expressing opinions different from your’s does not make them “liars”. You may, of course, criticize folks for not sharing your wisdom. But, you are misusing the epithet.
I bow to your knowledge of what all organic gardeners “hate”.
Be that as it may, my belief is that organic growing has enormous value. Wider adoption, I believe, would help in a lot of ways. Even so, crop yields declining following applicaton of synthetics does not prove all that you say. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That’s fancy Latin telling us that just because one event follows another, it doesn’t mean that the first event caused the second.
In other words, I am not as sure as you that decreasng farm yields are always due just to herbicides, pesiticides and chemical fertilizers. There may be other factors involved, e.g., monoculture, climate change, pollinator declines, or even intentionally plowing under crops to create baseball fields.
You say continued chemical use “lowers yields each consecutive year.” Really? Every time? Again, I believe in organic methods. But lets pretend that what you say happens.
You might be mistaking correlation with causation. Santa Claus correlates closely with Chistmas. But that doesn’t mean that Santa Claus causes Christmas.
Your commitment to organic methods might be leading you to some faulty logic. What you cite in your post proves nothing beyond your enthusiasm for non-synthetic farming and your fondness for hate.
As it happens, I do not typically use herbicides or pesticides in my garden. I’ve been doing that much longer than your “thirteen years”. However, I confess that I’ve used RoundUp in battling Kudzu from time to time. I don’t know what the organic solution for Kudzu is, but I suspect that, whatever it is, Kudzu laughs at it.
You may be interested to learn that other practices, even tho’ accepted among organic farming circles, suffer from pest resistance issues. Bacillus thuringinesis, or Bt, is commonly used in your circle (as well as among transgenic gardeners) to deal with tent catepillars. Resistance is now developing among caterpillars.
Being “organic” does not necessarily avoid such issues. (And, besides, Bt, kills ALL caterpillars who may feed on the foliage upon which it is sprayed . . . meaning all the butterflies and moths are being eliminated, too.)
Garedeners and farmers make lots of choices. Many of those carry consequences, whether intended or not. Some of us choose different approaches. Doing so doesn’t make us liars or shills for synthetic industries.
Thanks for the sane, line by line rebuttal of the guy who went off the rails. It’s one thing to defend your principles or reasons for doing what you do, it’s another to be rude and almost incoherent. You did a 180 to that.
I have recommended the 2014 New Yorker article, “Seeds of Doubt”—about Vandana Shiva’s “controversial crusade against genetically modified crops”— at dinner parties. Are you looking for a hot conversation topic? ( It’s like talking about gun reform at an NRA convention.). I get a lot of GMO and Roundup pushback and I’m not clear where I stand. I have asked only that my friends read the article. I have heard back from no one on the subject. Jack, from one “dirt farmer” to another, thank you for stirring a gooey pot.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
What a nicely balanced post about a difficult and important topic. I didn’t feel like the OP was trying to look like an expert at all, merely exploring the issues and inviting conversation.
Like summercloud, I feel that the issue is divided into 2 parts: the science (including the effects of GMOs on crops, people’s health, and the environment/planet as a whole over time), and the politics/economy surrounding it.
Patents on plants are nothing new; but one concern of mine is that the way GMOs are controlled, I can see the centralization of control over farming going towards a small, very wealthy minority that is so far removed from growing anything or being directly affected by any consequences that our food security is threatened. As for the science, it’s like every other advance brought about by humans: spasmodic and always changing, sometimes beneficial and sometimes detrimental. I just hope that someone in charge is keeping an eye out for the planet’s health as a whole.
Ms. Wilburn – How do your know what my principles are as related to issue of GMO’s. I don’t remember having a discussion with you in which I revealed those principles. If you wish to shield Mr Kramer’s “rant” from a detailed examination of its features then just say so.
Thank you Allen Bush. Seeds of Doubt added to my search on the subject. However…
Despite all the debate, GMO food crops seem to be a non-issue. After 20 years golden rice is still not in production:
https://www.scidev.net/global/news/despite-clearing-hurdle-public-cant-sample-gm-rice-yet/
Cotton that is resistant to boll weevil has been successful. Other than test plots, I am not finding genetically modified food crops available anywhere in the world.
Glenys, pick up any candy bar or box of cereal at the grocery store. They all state they are partially produced with bioengineered products. Here in the USA that means corn, corn syrup, modified food starch, soy and all its many products, etc. Only by purchasing certified organic products are we avoiding eating GMOs.
Kind of what I was suspecting about GMOs. I also expected the writer to get his head handed to him, instead of thoughtful discussion. That’s a shame.
It is perhaps to my detriment that I don’t tend to shy away from fraught subjects.
I disagree. It is to your credit. Furthermore, you have fared well in the comments on your article. You need not feel any regrets.