Aren't They Bad For You?
Public Understanding of GMOs
I started my search for the source of the bad impression that GMOs seemed to be making on the public by conducting a general sweeping survey. I wanted to get a feel for the general impression and knowledge base around GMOs and where people got their information. I asked them what they could tell me about the acronym GMO and whether or not it was a good or bad thing. Some of them may have been slightly biased from spending too much time around me, but many of them seemed just as lost as everyone in the Jimmy Kimmel video on the introduction page.
Similar to the video, most of the people that I asked had a general idea that the “G” stood for genetic and that they were something that was cooked up in a laboratory, but they really didn’t know for sure what the “M” and the “O” stood for. Almost everyone that I asked said that they had a feeling that they were bad, but they couldn’t specifically tell me why. When I asked where they heard about them or got their information from, I got a unanimous “the internet.” One specified that she read a few articles, though she didn’t really absorb most of it. For the most part, though, no one could really tell me where they got all of their information from.
None of the people I asked seemed to be actively seeking out information about GMOs. They also weren’t very confident about their answers, so I suspect that their knowledge comes from a more passive exposure to information.
Perhaps they’ve been exposed to labels like this, all of which I found just rooting through my own pantry:
Or maybe their favorite restaurants advocate for the use of non-GMO ingredients:
If you ask Ben Goldacre, medical doctor and author of Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks and Big Pharma Flacks, the public opinion is in part shaped by the media and its promotion of scientific misunderstanding. A friend of mine suggested that articles shared on social media have influenced his ideas about what GMOs are. Another referenced a documentary he’d seen but couldn’t remember the title of. Still another talked about getting his information from Reddit, a popular forum-type website where anyone can post and respond to a variety of issues, though the most common use seems to be humor.
Through the course of my research, I’ve found that misinformation and public misunderstanding seems to be rooted in miscommunication on several levels. A complex combination of factors works to shape public opinion, and not one single one is to blame. These factors include, but are not limited to: scientists making mistakes, campaigns setting the stage by using biased language, and last and certainly not least, the media.
CAMPAIGNS
Everyone has an opinion. Campaigns typically argue for what they believe to be a noble cause, but they’re also a large contributor to biased information for those who seek it out (and those who don’t). These campaigns, such as the Non-GMO project, drive the general feeling around a topic toward negative or positive using suggestive language in seemingly informative posts. They are also responsible for a lot of the passive absorption of information illustrated by the labels above.
Perhaps the biggest campaign against GMOs is the Non-GMO Project, which aims to make labeling of GMO products required by law. It’s one of the most common labels found on non-GMO foods (found on three of the nine products from my pantry) and has reached several areas of the internet.
Also contributing to the collection of anti-GMO sentiments are campaigns like GMO Inside, GMO Free USA, and Just Label It, all of which have similar goals to the Non-GMO Project. One of the main ideas promoted by these campaigns is that we have a right to know what’s in our food. They would like required labels for GMO foods as a means to discourage manufacturers from using them. But this isn’t the only way that campaigns contribute to passive manipulation of public opinion. The problem with required labeling of GMOs is that, as I've found, most people have no idea what it even means.
While all of these labels specify that the product is made with non-GMO ingredients, products labeled "100% Organic," "USDA Organic," or "Certified Organic" can almost certainly be counted as GMO-free as well.
So What Is a GMO, Really?
A simple Google search of the term “GMO” will turn up a seemingly straightforward definition:
If I were simply looking for information about a GMO, I don't think I would question it. To the scientist in me, though, this was probably one of the more frustrating things I found. This definition takes a positive thing, “living organism,” and makes it seem as if something unnatural has happened to it by using the term “artificially manipulated.” The photo accompanying the words is simply unfair. It's enough to give any needle-phobe the creeps. Considering that this definition is provided by the Non-GMO project, it makes sense. I have to give them credit for their stealth, but I also have to get just a little bit upset at Google for listing this as the primary definition.
Definitions come in a positively biased form, too. In a video from the YouTube channel SciShow, Hank Green (brother of The Fault in Our Stars author John Green), insists that
“a genetically modified organism is simply an organism, like every other organism, that produces hundreds of thousands of proteins, but one or two of them are proteins that were chosen specifically by humans.”
In contrast to the definition provided by the Non-GMO project, Green attempts to downplay the role that humans have in creating genetically modified foods. We’re choosing just one or two of hundreds of thousands of proteins already being produced, it can’t be that bad. (On a side note, the video does a pretty good job explaining the technology behind genetic engineering. Watch it here.)
Both of these definitions were found with a quick Google search of the term “GMO”, although I admit the video took quite a bit of digging to find. It seems as though no matter where we look, opinion is woven into every simple definition and explanation. Everything has a motive. The most neutral definition I could find actually comes from Wikipedia, and isn’t cited:
“A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism).”
To someone who has had a lot of exposure to the vocabulary involved with genetic engineering and biology, this comes off as neutral. However, to someone who’s never heard any of this before, this definition probably doesn’t clarify much. A friend of mine read it and said it just made her think it was something injected into the food. Even the non-biased information can dissuade people from doing more research because vague terms like "genetic engineering techinques" hold almost no meaning to the average person.
The simplest and best definition I can give of the term “Genetically Modified Organism” comes from the slides from my genetics lecture on the topic:
Any organism whose genome was engineered in the laboratory.
This is to say that scientists have taken genes from one species and inserted them into the genome of another species. This is commonly done in order to make plants more pesticide resistant, or to make one plant produce a nutrient that it would not make otherwise (see Hank Green’s definition).
Unfortunately, these kinds of definitions are hard to find and still don’t contain much information, making further reading on both sides of the argument vital.
SCIENTISTS
Of course, when talking about the spread of scientific information, it’s imperative to examine the source: the people who do the experiments. It is these people who make discoveries, publish the papers, and give press releases. While we would like to believe that we are a perfect community, this is sadly untrue. Mistakes get made, false information gets published in the hopes of getting more funding, and research studies get misinterpreted. In the case of GMOs, many of these things have and will continue to occur.
The Pusztai Affair
In 1998, a controversy known as the Pusztai Affair changed genetically modified organism research. The evidence that modified potatoes were not safe was presented in a press release in what is now known as one of the biggest scientific misunderstandings of all time.
At the time, a new modified potato had just made its debut. The strain was designed to produce lectins, a known insecticide, to protect the potatoes from being killed by aphids. The lectins were not known to be toxic to humans, but Dr. Arpad Pusztai wanted to confirm that no harm would come to those who ate them, so he began a study with rats.
Initial results of his study began to suggest that the lining of the stomach in the rats who were fed raw genetically modified potatoes was thicker than that of rats fed the normal potatoes. The rats who were fed cooked modified potatoes experienced no such symptoms. This was a concern for Pusztai, but the study was unfinished, the data unpublished and the study remained unreviewed by any journal.
Pusztai went on with a press release anyway, under the assumption that his results were too important to wait. He said that he had major concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods, and went on record saying that he wouldn’t eat them.
Since his press release, several scientists have reviewed Pusztai’s work and discredited him on account of faulty experimental methods, incorrect statistical analysis, and too few test subjects. They found that he was actually feeding rats potatoes that were engineered to be toxic to mammals for laboratory purposes. His entire study was retracted and Pusztai was charged with misconduct.
Even though his research has been discredited, the public and the media remain skeptical about GMOs. The Non-GMO project still cites the Pusztai study as a cause for not eating GMOs, and the Organic Consumers Association published an interview they conducted with Pusztai as evidence against GM (genetically modified) foods. They don’t talk about his misconduct charge, and they use his testimony to garner fear from the public.
Unfortunately for GM foods, this event set the stage for attitudes surrounding the introduction of newly engineered crops in the future.
MEDIA
If we include social media in this category, we account for the majority of the way information spreads. This is what makes the media so hard to analyze. According to Dr. Ben Goldacre, journalists and other media personnel have a unique responsibility when it comes to writing about science. They must do their research and understand what they’re writing.
Science Reporting
Problems in science reporting can be attributed to several different factors. The complexity of the material, the lack of interest in science journalism as a whole, and regular journalists, intelligent people no doubt, chasing down sensations instead of facts.
There are people who make a living reporting on only scientific information. They are usually scientists themselves, and their work is published in journals like Scientific American and Discover Magazine. In these publications, facts are chased and checked and reported with as good of accuracy as one can hope for in articles about science for the general public (Like this one about GMOs). According to Goldacre, these are the people who are never asked when big stories, like the ones published in fear of GMOs and and the MMR vaccine, get published. Scientific journalists don’t go near these stories because the facts often don’t check out. They spend their time instead researching less sensational discoveries. This leaves news journalists to attempt to understand complex information and relay it to the public. The consequences of this often end up as unnecessary scares and boycotts.
Goldacre implies that a journalist has the responsibility to fact check everything, but because the material is often too complex for them to really be able to critique it, they tend to give a character witness as a way of making their source seem reputable. They interview a scientist and say that he or she is “a nice, amicable person,” as James Randerson says of Arpad Pusztai in this Guardian article:
“Contrary to the belief of some in the scientific community, Dr. Arpad Pusztai does not have horns or a malevolent cackle. Nor does he inhabit an imposing gothic mansion bought with the proceeds of guest appearances as an eco-hero. In fact, he lives in a modest semi in Aberdeen.”
From what I can gather, we are to assume that his lack of horns and modest home make him more reliable. Goldacre says that journalists “think that this is what it means to critically appraise a scientific argument and seem rather proud of themselves when they do it.” I’d like to think that I’m a bit less condescending, but it was far too easy for me to find an example of it for me to disagree.
So, journalists don’t know how to evaluate science. This isn’t exactly news. A journalist will typically have a degree in the humanities or communications, majors which don’t focus on scientific method and critique; we can’t expect them to be able to understand every topic they come across. And while they should chase down every lead they can and check every fact with an expert, the rush to get a big story out often prevents this from happening, something that very likely happened in the case of the Pusztai Affair. This makes research on the part of the individual even more crucial.
Social Media
A quick search of the term “GMO” on my facebook page revealed several posts from various people on both sides of the GMO debate.
With all of this information shoved in our direction, how are we ever supposed to know what to believe? It’s probably best to do your own research before or after you read all of those spammy articles from your Facebook friends. Even so, knowing what a reputable source is can be difficult.
The article in the Boston Globe above is a heavily biased article about legislation. Sumofus.org is a website dedicated to outing companies for behavior that they deem unethical. Gmoanswers.com is a pro-GMO website dedicated to answering questions from people about GMOs. And no, a blueberry being abnormally large does not make it GMO. As a matter of fact, blueberries aren't even on the list of crops that are approved for genetic engineering.
The sad fact of the matter is that aside from the people sharing articles on social media and taking sides, the reason most people know little to nothing about issues that can have an effect on their lives is because they simply don't care enough. I was talking to my mom, who is not a science junky like myself, about writing this article, and I asked her how long I could make it and still hold her attention. Her answer? "Maybe a page or two, and that's just because I'm your mom." That was disheartening, but I wrote it anyway. Unfortunately my mother is not so different from most people I asked, a majority of whom told me they probably wouldn't even click on something like this. It simply doesn't interest them, and I get it.
So many of these articles try to shove blocks of text with dense information into the face of the reader, and it's unpleasant. Instead of reading them, people hold onto the titles of shared articles and news headlines and labels with bits of information that they passively absorb. This is where the general feeling of "GMO = bad" comes from. And while this may not really affect us that much right now, it does have some much larger effects for populations around the world, and this is why we should care. Not because it's interesting, but because not caring has real consequences for real people around the world.
A Real World Example: Vitamin A Enriched Rice
People in many impoverished nations, especially in Southeast Asia and Africa, survive on diets consisting mainly of rice. It's cheap and they can grow it themselves, making it an ideal sustainable crop. Unfortunately, rice doesn't provide many essential nutrients, and one nutrient in particular that has caused issues for these populations is vitamin A. Deficiency in vitamin A (VAD) can cause permanent blindness, but also severely affects the immune system and can lead to early death. According to the Golden Rice Project's website, VAD kills nearly two million people and blinds 500,000 every year. Both of these afflictions are faced primarily by people in developing countries, in particular children and pregnant women, where rice is the main agricultural product and dietary staple.
In an effort to alleviate the blindness and early death faced by these populations, Professors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer created "Golden Rice", a strain of rice that produces beta-carotene, which the body metabolizes into vitamin A. The rice is yellowish in color but otherwise tastes and looks like normal rice.
When the rice was successfully engineered and determined to be safe, the scientists began growing it on test plots in the Philippines. A 2012 study showed that the beta-carotene found in Golden Rice was just as good of a source of vitamin A as the pure beta-carotene found in oil. The rice was also successful at combating blindness and death caused by VAD:
"Estimates suggest that supplementing GR for 20% of the diet of children and 10% for pregnant women and mothers will be enough to combat the effects of VAD."
The project seemed to be a success.
Unfortunately for people suffering from VAD, public misconceptions about genetically modified foods led to protests and acts of eco-terrorism. Test fields of the rice were burned by people who feared that eating it could cause adverse health effects or that it was created by big businesses who aimed to make money off of some of the poorest people in the world (the rice was actually given to the International Rice Research Institute for free, meaning that no big biotech company will make any money from its use).
Golden Rice still faces controversy even though there seems to be no real evidence that it will cause any adverse health effects or make profits for a big industry.
Situations like this are unfortunately too common for genetically modified crops. Even though they are almost always created to solve problems and make life on Earth more sustainable, the lack of understanding on the part of the public sparks unnecessary controversy, which can be avoided by a few minutes of reading before assuming something is bad.
I have a theory that if we all learn 5 facts about a subject before dismissing it, not opinions or things that can be bent to the will of a protester or supporter, the world would be a much more informed place. So here are 5 facts about GMOs to get you started:
1. 70-80% of the food consumed by Americans contains GMO ingredients.
2. There are currently 19 crops approved by the USDA for genetic modification.
3. Of these 19 crops, only 9 are commercially available from GMO seeds.
4. 88% of corn in the US is genetically modified.
5. Genetically modified foods have been around for centuries. The only difference is that now we have the technology to choose which genes we want to be expressed.