Ashok Vasudevan
If hybridization
was the cornerstone of the Green revolution of the 60s & 70s, some would
like to see GMOs (Genetically
Modified Organisms) as the trigger for the next agricultural revolution. This
paper will argue that it is far from it.
It is true that humans have been tinkering with
crops for thousands of years. Evidence of selective breeding can be found in
Asia dating back to 7800 BCE. About the same time, in the Andes, the natives
transformed a noxious plant into Potatoes, the 4th most important
crop for humans today. The top 3 (Rice, Wheat and Corn) all came from wild inedible
grasses through massive human intervention through the ages. The same process of
selective breeding also spawned seedless grapes and watermelons, the fat heads
of broccoli and virtually every fruit & vegetable we consume. These are
inspiring stories of evolution. So far so good.
But a discontinuous change happened in 1992.
Using a newly acquired DNA technology, the Flavr
Savr Tomato became the first genetically engineered vegetable. An inhibitor
added to its DNA made it firmer with a longer shelf life. With this, the
floodgates opened for GMOs. Most will however argue the GMO tomato is not a flavr savr. In fact it's the flavor
thief. But loss of flavor is only part
of the larger problem with GMOs.
In 1995 we saw corn, a staple ingredient in
processed foods in the US, genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides
by using genes from the B.thuringiensis bacteria.
By 1996, we saw a host of herbicide resistant crop seeds, allowing for entire
fields to be sprayed with weed killing chemicals without damaging the
crops. All of this being done under the
FDA's (GRAS) Generally Recognized as Safe standard, rather than the more
stringent Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for food additive
tolerance requirements.
In the short 25 years since its creation, we
have seen the proliferation of GMOs across the US farmland and in
supermarkets. Genetically modified seeds
account for 81% of the corn and 94% of the soybeans grown in the US, while in a
typical grocery store 70% of what
Americans find on shelves are made from ingredients that have been genetically
modified!
The US is the largest consumer of GMOs in the
world. So it may be instructive to draw some lessons from there before
countries outline their own policy towards genetic modification of food.
A bunch of arguments are made to promote
benefits of GMO seeds. Main among them are higher
yields, resistance to certain herbicides, and improved nutrition. For farmers looking for a way to increase
their profitability, switching to GMOs seemed like a silver bullet. But only a few short years into what was
hailed as the "next revolution in food" the GMO movement is facing
serious headwinds both from within the industry and from a larger consumer
movement.
A good place to start is an acknowledgement
that Americans are the loudest critics of GMOs today. They are no longer fringe protesters but the
mainstream of society. The millennial pushback is a tsunami and major
supermarkets and literally thousands of stores across the country are supporting
the non-GMO label. In fact Wholefoods has stated that by 2018 ALL its products
will be non-GMO. (Let’s take this more seriously- Amazon just bought
Wholefoods!)
Now lets turn to the three specific arguments in
support of GMOs:
1.
GMO crops increase yields- so farmers are enriched: FALSE
After over 20 years of use, no scientific study
conclusively supports GMO use as increasing crop yields. Europe, which has
resisted the GMO movement, continues to match US corn and sugar beet yields
using non-GMO seeds and less herbicides and pesticides!
The promise of Increased yields of GMO crops was
a carrot to many farmers who struggled with the high costs of running a
farm. Is their life better today? After 25 years of GMO existence the brutal fact
is that apart from the colossal Federal farm subsidy of $25 Billion last year;
over 20% of American farmers are on the national food assistance program
(SNAP), earlier known as food stamps!
2.
GMOs help reduce Agrochemical use in the farm (like Herbicides): FALSE
In theory, planting herbicide resistant seeds
allows for a heavy spraying of a weedkiller at the beginning of the season but
less spraying during the course of the growing year, reducing overall
consumption. Unfortunately, the theory
only held for a few years following the introduction of GMOs.
The
Rise of the Superweed:
Chemical resistant Superweeds are starting to appear on GMO farms across the US.
Resistant to one or more types of weedkillers, superweeds are forcing farmers
to increase and vary the chemicals used in a single growing season or worse,
reverting back to heavy tilling to remove weeds which erodes topsoil. The increased use of herbicides further raises
concern of runoff water laden with toxins entering the water supply.
A picture above is worth a 1000 words. So much for reduced herbicides since the introduction of GMOs about 25 years ago.
When weeds become resistant to herbicides, new GMOs must be formulated to be resistant to additional toxic chemicals. More R&D costs equal higher seed prices. Farmers who habitually use GMO seeds become addicted to purchasing the newly reformulated seeds and their corresponding reformulated herbicides in a never ending vicious cycle.
When weeds become resistant to herbicides, new GMOs must be formulated to be resistant to additional toxic chemicals. More R&D costs equal higher seed prices. Farmers who habitually use GMO seeds become addicted to purchasing the newly reformulated seeds and their corresponding reformulated herbicides in a never ending vicious cycle.
3.
GMOs make more Nutritious Food: FALSE
The first attempt to increase the nutritional
value of the food we consume by genetic modification was the Golden Rice project. Promoted as a way
to prevent childhood blindness caused by a deficiency in Vitamin A, a gene from
corn and (animal) bacterium was embedded in a rice variety that helps produce
beta carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A in the human body.
Field trials of the rice never never reached
the affordability and yields required to make it commercially viable. In
addition, the original premise that a Vitamin A deficiency alone caused
blindness was flawed as it was later proven that a combination of dehydration
and malnutrition in children prevented the absorption of Vitamin A causing the
blindness. Golden Rice was fighting a symptom, not the cause.
No comprehensive studies have been done to
check the phytochemical dilution in vegetables as they get genetically
modified. Without external fortification
it is today virtually impossible to genetically create desirable
phytochemicals, micronutrients and alkaloids within a vegetable and have them
bio-available to humans. No, GMOs have not enhanced human nutrition.
The
Next Emerging non-tariff trade barrier- GMO Foods
While the GMO/Non-GMO battle continues, health
conscious consumers around the world are increasingly purchasing natural and
organic foods. Acreage certified as
organic is at an alltime high, and many of the high profile food producers are
entering the organic market. (By
definition, organic foods are certified non-GMO)
American consumers are becoming more wary of
what ingredients are in their food and are calling for mandatory GMO labeling
by food manufacturers. While several food and agrochemical companies are
fighting this, it seems almost inevitable that more descriptive labeling is on
the way and with that, the debate will almost certainly escalate.
Supermarkets are already demanding non GMO
labels. Regulators are scrambling to keep pace. The foundation for a ban on GMO
imports into the US and other developed markets (or at any rate increased trade
barriers) is an all too realistic scenario.
It appears that the next green wave of food
production is at a crossroads in the US, but the manufacturers of GMOs are not
waiting to see which direction the American consumer takes. They are
aggressively marketing to European and Asian countries, using the same promises
they made to American farmers. They question is - will history repeat.
The march of science is unstoppable and
genetics is no exception. Science allows us to dream big. But the pursuit of a
big dream demands careful callibration and the study of unintended
consequences. Our future prosperity lies in our intelligent application of
science and not in the mindless pursuit of what can be done as opposed to what
ought to be done.
It is true that dozens of countries (28 as of
today) have allowed the growth of genetically modified crops in their farms.
But it is sobering and heartening to know more countries have banned it than
adopted it. Among them Russia, China and the European Union. India is on the
fence but veering towards permitting GMOs. It will do well to pause. India has
the potential to be the breadbasket to the world. Many things can go wrong in
the pursuit of that vision. Adopting GMOs is certainly one of them
Acknowledgement: Deep debt of gratitude to Bob Wells ( Program Coordinator at The MAV Foundation, www.mavfoundation.org) for researching and providing me the early draft for this piece.
References:
Broken Promises of GMOs
References:
Broken Promises of GMOs
A Brief Look at the long history of GMOs
Doubts about the bounty of GMOs
A Hard Look at Three Myths about GMOs
