Photo by illuminating9_11/ Flickr
Currently UBC Okanagan has a cafeteria that sells GMO free products, textbooks that unfairly represent GMOs and, in addition, a large proportion of a student population that is either undecided or against GMOs. In contrast, our cafeterias, textbooks and student population are overwhelming convinced that climate change is a reality. Yet, in both cases, the scientific community is in consensus: the anti-climate change and anti-GMO movements are not scientifically based.
So you want some evidence? Consider this: A meta-analysis of 1738 peer-reviewed studies has failed to detect any hazards connected to the use of GMO crops. As explained by Blythe Neilson, one of our biology professors, GMOs currently undergo many times the number of requirements and regulations as any other food. Yet, there is not one quality peer reviewed paper which can point to negative health impacts of GMOs in food. Not one. In the entire, international, scientific community. In fact, 240 national scientific organizations have decreed that GMOs are safe, this includes the World Health Organization, The French Academy of Sciences, The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the European Commission.
Furthermore, many peer reviewed studies have proven that GMOs are actually more nutritious than alternatives. Consider Golden Rice. This GMO crop was engineered by Swiss scientists to prevent the large amount of blindness occurring every year in Africa due to Vitamin A deficiency. This product was evaluated for over ten years, the evaluation included levels of toxicity, allergenicity, nutrition, environmental impacts and social impacts. This 10 year study could not find one harmful effect. Therefore, Golden Rice is not only safe it is more nutritious due to added Vitamin A.
So at this point you might pause and accept that GMOs aren’t going to hurt you. But what about the environment? The more astute might ask about gene flow into the environment, their role in monoculture and contribution to decreasing biodiversity. Yet an abundance of studies have also been conducted on the environmental impacts of GMOs. Dr. John Klironomos, one of our biology professors, actually conducted research at the University of Guelph on whether modified genes infiltrated soil. “The study concluded that there was nothing to suggest that modified genes persist in soil” reported Dr. Klironomos. Additionally, through more targeted techniques, GMOs currently reduce the amount of pesticide used in agriculture by 36.9% therefore actually killing fewer animals than traditional agriculture. A great example of this is Bt corn, a GMO plant which produces toxins in its stem to kill a particular caterpillar. Because this pesticide is so specific to the caterpillar it has a negligible effect on other insects in the region. In fact, studies found that non-target invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than non GMO fields managed by alternative insecticides and pesticides.
But what about monoculture? Monoculture is regarded by the scientific community as damaging to the environment and surely GMOs contribute towards this because, through designing more pest resistant crops, they facilitate it by making it easier and more profitable. Yet, this perception arises from the tendency to compare GMO monoculture with traditional forms of agriculture. “The reality is that monoculture existed before GMOs and would exist afterwards” states Dr. Mike Deyholos, “The difference is that GMO monoculture uses less pesticide therefore are better for the environment overall”. So while monoculture is a large issue, both the desire for and practice of monoculture was prevalent before GMOs and would be without GMOs.
So why should we care about GMOs? Why should the UBC Okanagan student population spend time writing and reading articles about GMOs? After all there’s a lot of misinformation about diet, why should this one matter? We should care because GMOs are a matter of life and death.
Remember the Golden Rice? Well after 10 years of studies proving that it was safe for consumption and the environment, the rice was offered to African farmers for free. Absolutely free, no strings attached. Yet these lifesaving seeds were rejected due to a western movement which argues, without any scientific justification, that GMOs are unsafe. This year 250,000 – 500,000 children in Africa will become blind because of Vitamin A deficiency. This tragically high number could have been decreased.
The Golden Rice is just one way that GMOs can increase Food Security. According to Blythe Nilson, more than 50% of the world’s food supply is GMO crops. Almost 100% of soy, corn and cotton. If we were to prohibit GMO foods we would have 25% less yield than we currently do. “No GMO means telling ¼ of the human population that they must starve” illustrates Nilson. On the other hand, us wealthy western countries could put our money and education to a good cause and encourage the production of regulated and safe GMOs to feed even more starving people while simultaneously decreasing the use of pesticides and increasing biodiversity.
So when we speak about GMOs, and when we rally behind an unscientific movement, we’re not supporting another unfounded health fad. We’re not supporting some ‘carb-free’ diet which leads to a grumpy stomach for a few days, we’re supporting a movement which has directly contributed towards thousands of deaths. The next time you pick up an energy bar marked GMO free consider this: you had a choice between GMO and non GMO, the blind children in Africa didn’t have that choice yet they were the ones who paid for it.