Fooling Mother Nature

Aug. 13, 2015

Food activists have zeroed in on their next target: Genetically modified organisms (GMO; it’s plural). They must be labeled, we’re told, because we don’t know if they’re safe.

It must be true because Neil Young has written a song about it and Gwynyth Paltrow has declared it to be so (Ms. Paltrow also believes the molecular structure of water changes depending on whether you’re nice or mean to it. Seriously).

GMO are defined as something in which the genome has been altered by human intervention in a way that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there. In other words, we’ve fooled with Mother Nature.

Why would we want to do such a thing? We’ve being doing it in one way or another for centuries. The ability to do it in a laboratory is just the latest permutation in a long line of folks fiddling with things that grow to make them stronger, bigger, sweeter and all manner of other desirable traits.

But GMO sound like Frankenstein’s tomato, and there are plenty of horror stories on the Internet.

We’ve now had 20 years of legal GMO products in the marketplace. If you’ve eaten processed food or meat it is a near certainty you have already ingested them. Nearly 90 percent of the soy, corn and cotton grown in the U.S. is GMO. And 90 percent of animals we eat are fed GMO.

There have thus far been 2,000 published, peer-reviewed studies on GMO safety. None have found them to be any more or less dangerous than non-GMO products.

In a study published in the Journal of Animal Science involving a billion animals over a 29-year period, the largest ever done on animal feed, researchers were able to compare cattle fed with non-GMO feed prior to its legalization and those fed primarily on GMO feed thereafter. They found no statistically significant difference in disease, deformity or early death between the non- GMO and GMO fed cattle.

The National Academy of Science, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and the Food and Drug Administration have all declared GMO safe for human consumption.

And what about the non-GMO but still altered products?

In 1960, a group of researchers at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities’ Agriculture Experiment Station’s Horticultural Research Center decided to improve an existing product. They labeled the new effort MN1711.

In 1988, having finally perfected their creation, they patented the work (here’s a clue: If a grown product has a patent, it’s a pretty good bet it isn’t original equipment). In 1991, their new product went on the market. They called it the Honeycrisp apple.

What did they do? Starting with two varieties of apples and after 28 years of grafting, crossbreeding, hybridizing and experimenting, they created an apple that has a longer shelf-life and, importantly, a longer warehouse life in the right conditions. They also managed to change the cellular structure so the cells are bigger and contain more liquid to guarantee a nice, juicy bite.

Last year, other University of Minnesota researchers decided to try to trace the lineage of the Honeycrisp during its nearly three-decade journey. Only one of the two original apples is still detectable. The DNA of the other has now vanished.

The Honeycrisp apple is not considered a GMO though its DNA has most certainly been created by human intervention. We fooled Mother Nature to make a new apple. In fact, we now grow 2,500 varieties of apples in the U.S. and 7,500 worldwide.

We accept changing fruits and vegetables through a "natural process" as perfectly acceptable – though the results aren’t always natural. It’s unlikely nature planned seedless grapes, watermelons or cucumbers. Or plants that are self-sterile and need to be pollinated by other varieties of the same plant, like the Honeycrisp apple.

The GMO currently being used – mostly soy, corn and cotton – have been altered to make them heartier or resistant to herbicides and insect pests. Farmers in the U.S. growing GMO have increased their crop yield 22 percent, decreased their pesticide use 37 percent and increased their profits 68 percent.

New GMO are attempting to enhance nutritional value and resistance to drought and salinity. Countries with starvation and malnutrition issues will benefit most.

We’re wise to be vigilant about what we consume. Good health is mostly a self-discipline.

But we shouldn’t be persuaded by fear-driven hyperbole that does not reflect the current scientific reality. Even slapping GMO labels on some products doesn’t tell us much.

What about the country of origin and any detectable pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers? With meat, poultry and dairy, what about growth hormones and antibiotics?

If we want to label everything, let’s make sure everything is on the label. And let’s be more concerned about adulterations that might hurt us than those science says will not.