Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have an image problem. They have been denigrated by groups calling for an outright ban. In response to these activists, certain restaurants, such as Chipotle, have removed GMO ingredients from their menus. While a call for fresh, nutritious and unprocessed foods is a noble cause that can vastly improve public health worldwide, is the fear of GMOs justified, or is a crusade against GMOs representative of a larger problem with science?
In January 2015, the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conducted a poll to find out what Americans and scientists thought about science; a troubling takeaway concerned GMOs. While 88 percent of AAAS scientists said genetically modified foods are generally safe, only 37 percent of the general public concurred. No other scientific issue, from climate change to vaccinations, had this large of a disparity.
Maybe it’s a problem of knowledge. The reality is that food geneticists are not mad scientists injecting tomatoes with syringes of green goo. In fact, modifying the genome of organisms has occurred for millions of years, with or without human intervention.
Whether with random mutations coupled with natural selection or human-induced selective breeding, biodiversity changes over time. Humans have taken advantage of genetics in order to develop plants and animals with desirable traits. The resistance to pests and herbicides, improved yield and increased nutritional value have been instrumental to the development of modern society through selective breeding.
The science of genetic engineering also plays a role in health care. Consider recent developments to genetically modify viruses in an attempt to combat brain cancer. Researchers at The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center at Duke University are using a genetically modified version of the polio virus to treat glioblastoma multiform. This Phase I study has shown great promise thus far and is a proof of concept for curing other debilitating diseases.
In spite of the positives associated with GMOs, there are groups of ardent critics that bully developing nations to ban GMOs. Food security currently tops the list of important human necessities. A healthy diet wards off other health problems. GMOs offer an opportunity to turn the tide in favor of farmers in developing nations. By improving their food security, they can focus on improving the rest of their lives and their countries. It’s hard to care about democracy, women’s rights and education when you’re hungry.
In contrast, those in the developed world demanding a ban on GMOs and increased “traditional” farming do so from a table stocked with a cornucopia of affordable food. Yet these critics who rely on scientific consensus to support climate change will shun scientific evidence in support of the safety of GMOs. The cognitive dissonance is discouraging.
It’s a myth that famines are simply caused by a lack of food. It’s not just bad weather or a failed crop; famines are a result of failed human intervention. A misguided policy to ban GMOs will compound starvation. To support bans on GMOs is to support the starving of others.