The Truths that made GMO Crops Questionable

Moving on swiftly from how much time has passed since I last posted here…

I’ve been reading a book (Seeds of Science) and other articles to get as much information for this piece as I can. I must admit, I have worked more on this piece than I have on any of my previous articles. That’s because I wanted to provide dependable information about this very controversial topic of GMO crops. I have been reluctant to post this piece because I’m aware that it’s possible for anything I pen down to be singled out and taken out of context. Some of the information in this article is fodder for the misconceptions already surrounding GMO crops and science at large. That said, I encourage you to read this article with an open mind, to read to the end, and if possible, to get your hands on the book that inspired it before forming any hard opinions.

This piece is an answer to a question asked by one of you (my readers) about an article I wrote on The Truth about GMO Crops back in April 2021. The article highlighted the common misconceptions around GMO crops and the truths that bust them. The reader asked about the risks and dangers associated with GMOs, because they believe that there is a truth to every rumor.

I delved into researching this question thinking that I already knew everything I would read, but I was surprised by what I found. And just like the COVID-19 pandemic has brought out historical distrust issues between patients/people and the health industry, GMOs did the same between farmers/consumers and the agrochemical industry. This article only summarizes information from half of the book (it would have been too long if I summarized all of it). A future article may follow on the rest of the book.

For context, the writer of the book, Seeds of Science, was an anti-GMO activist who was popular among several key movements that campaigned vigorously against GMO crops. Most of these movements began in the 90s and are still active to date. They physically confronted the scientists and companies behind the discovery of GMOs, going as far as burning down acres of test GMO crops to stop research. They also attempted to kill the first animal clone- Dolly the sheep. Dolly eventually became obese and died because she was overfed by visitors. The premature death of Dolly has also been misconstrued as a failure of cloning. Mark Lynas, the writer, started researching about GMOs a few years after being in the movement and turned around to defending GMOs. His opinions before came from the things he had heard people say about GMOs but when he started looking for evidence for his claims, he fell into the truth and changed his mind. I thought that his was the perfect book to read to answer the question. In a nutshell, this is what I’ve learned

Most Genetic Engineering Companies did not begin as Agricultural Companies

They began as chemical companies and somehow found their way into manufacture and distribution of a nuclear weapon. The chemical was initially intended to be an herbicide but was discovered to have harmful effects on people. That is one of the worst tags a company can carry in the eyes of people, especially one that now contributes to what we eat. How do you turn from making that which can destroy to molding crops that can nourish? As expected, most people, including farmers, were very skeptical about this sudden change in the companies’ interests. I believe that this is the sole reason why a big portion of the people who have a negative connotation to GMOs do.

Historically, the Companies denied claims of harm caused by their products

I think it’s quite alright for scientists to admit when they don’t know something. We’ve recently had an up-close and personal experience where scientists don’t have all the answers as relates to COVID-19. However, I would consider it an act of bad faith for those who knew and witnessed the effects of the chemical, to deny that it was poisonous. There was every opportunity to own up to the devastating effects the chemical had on those affected, but they denied that it could do the damage it had done on the victims. This mistake undoubtedly could not be fixed by the rebrand that followed, turning these companies to genetic engineering companies. Other than this example, the author highlights a few other incidences in which companies claimed that a chemical was safe, till a few years later there is sufficient proof that it isn’t. The book goes into the gory details of these real stories, and if I had stopped reading it at this point, I would have also grown to loathe the “science of GMOs.”

I suppose the above points could convince anyone that the lack of acceptance of GMO plants is justified. I would like to point out that this has a lot to do with perception of the companies more than the actual science behind GMO plants. The next few chapters of the book describe how the discovery of GMOs came about. And maybe the most comforting fact is that the scientists who pioneered genetic engineering to protect plants against pests and diseases worked independently from these companies. Additionally, as a scientist who has sat in genetic engineering classes, read, and understood what research led to the establishment of GMO crops, I can opine the following:

There are no chemicals that go into making GMOs that could result in surprises later on

One of the most outstanding statements made in this book is, “If the genetics of crop plants could be harnessed to directly combat pests and diseases, then agrochemicals would gradually become less important. Insect-resistant corn would not need insecticide, fungus-resistant would not need fungicide and so on.” This was the goal of genetic engineering of crops and biotechnology companies in the early 90s. There was a major revolution in the goals of the former chemical industry, backed up by their investments in hiring life scientists who worked with nature to solve the problems they identified. The book goes into explaining the process of genetic engineering, in which a process plants already perform on their own is used to give it benefits against pests and diseases. I would go into the details of that, but this article is already long enough, and this is my encouragement for you to read the book and make your own depictions.

The commercialization of GMO seeds could have been done better

There were years of research that led to the eventual release of seeds that could be labelled as genetically modified. This means that there were many scientists’ research efforts and lots of resources involved. These people had to reap the fruits of their labor somehow. For this, they decided to partner with genetic engineering companies to make it possible for their idea to result into production of seeds that would reach their target audience — farmers and consumers. Keeping in mind the reputation of these companies, the response of the public to the seeds was predictable and stable. In addition to the history, there were many lawsuits filed by some companies against farmers about the use of these seeds. Some farmers who didn’t buy the expensive GMO seeds still ended up with GMO crops when a neighboring farm’s GMO produce naturally spilled over its seeds to their farms. These farmers were greeted with lawsuits from the companies that they found absurd, because they could not prevent the spillovers. This was received by the public as an act of the big guy bullying the small guy because of the funds the companies had to back up these legal actions. The companies claimed that farmers could avoid planting the seeds after the spillovers, which is true. In my opinion, both parties had legitimate arguments. The farmers benefited from something their neighbors had invested in, with no benefit to the companies. On the other hand, the farmers could not prevent seeds from spilling over to their properties.

This article has the potential to become argumentative. However, that is not my intention. I would want you to take away from this piece, firstly that the science of GMO crops is reasonably safe. Secondly, that as far as I’ve gathered from the book, the misconceptions around GMO crops are more to do with the reputation of the companies that make them than the crops and seeds or the science behind them. Let me know in the comments if you have further questions on this topic.

Reference:

Lynas, Mark. Seeds of Science (p. 89). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.