there seems to be a lot of confusion around the topic of gmos among the public. and with the plethora of information and fear surrounding the topic, it’s easy to get overwhelmed in deciphering the truth.

but as a consumer and an environmental science and nutrition student, i was determined to broaden my perspective, and set out to speak with a farmer and a plant scientist to learn more about what role gmos may have in our world.

after reading the book “tomorrow’s table,” i spoke with authors raoul w. adamchak, an organic farmer and educator at university of california davis, as well as his wife, pamela c. ronald, a professor from the department of plant pathology and genome center, also at university of california davis.

as i read, researched, and spoke with different people about gmos, i discovered an under-appreciated perspective, worthy of being more widely shared.

what is a gmo anyway?

surprisingly, there is no true precise or universal scientific definition of the phrase “gmo,” nor is there any regulation around its use for labeling in the united states, which may contribute to the large amount of public confusion surrounding the topic.

says ronald: “many people use it to mean ‘genetically modified organism,’ but the fda doesn’t use that term because everything we eat is genetically modified in some manner, and we generally don’t eat whole organisms, so it doesn’t really have a scientific meaning.

“i try not to use that term because i think it really confuses people,” she added.

and confuse people it does. many misinterpret long-used gene-altering techniques to be the same thing as genetic modification, when the two are in fact distinct (albeit similar) entities. and while media hype may lead you to believe all things non-organic and local are full of gmos, large cost and regulatory barriers actually keep the number of genuine gmos on the market quite low.

are gmos safe?

the safety of gmos is frequently brought into question. but when it comes to gmos and human health, the science overwhelmingly agrees that genetically modified foods are indeed safe for consumption. the american association for the advancement of science, who, national academy of sciences, and fda, all say that gmos are safe for consumption based on the plethora of available data.

so why are people so afraid of gmos?

according to ronald, part of the broad misconception about gmos may be due to lack of ample communication on the topic from scientists, farmers, and the agriculture industry.  

the rampant and increasing mistrust of scientific entities in combination with the plethora of false science, nutrition, and agriculture information flooding our news feeds makes it increasingly difficult for legitimate information to reach people’s ears in what ronald calls a “fear-based market and economy.”

and although the notion of food that has been tinkered with in a lab is understandably unsettling to some, it’s interesting to reflect on our otherwise general trust of medications that have been created in similar settings.

gmos, it seems, are often villainized, despite the fact that they have no proven long-term negative health or environmental impacts, have offered enormous benefits to others and are addressing real-world issues related to sustainability and malnutrition.

can gmos be useful?

gmos and gene-altering techniques on agricultural crops can, in fact, be useful.

how exactly? “geneticists are using modern gene modification to enhance sustainability,” ronald says.

gmos already have been shown to reduce pesticide use, increase crop yields, and boost farmer income in both developing and developed nations, which may help move the planet toward a more sustainable food system.

furthermore, the genetic addition of certain micronutrients to staple crops, as with the addition of beta-carotene to “golden” rice, has helped address some issues of malnutrition.

and with climate change creating more severe storms and unpredictable weather patterns, gene modification may offer an added layer of heartiness to plants to manage extreme weather.

for example: ronald’s lab and their collaborators have used marker-assisted breeding, to “develop gene markers that can survive floods as the climate changes.”

sometimes, gmos can even save a crop. the papaya once was threatened by extinction by the papaya ringspot virus. fortunately, a plant geneticist from cornell university was able to insert a gene modification that made the crop resistant to the devastating disease, thereby essentially saving the papaya industry and allowing consumers worldwide to enjoy this popular vitamin c-rich fruit.

and although not currently allowed in organic farming, some believe gmo seeds could offer a benefit to the organic industry, as well.

could gmos have a place in organic farming?

as with conventional crops, using gmos in organic farming could improve yields of organic (and conventional for that matter) crops, and deliver fewer heavily pesticide-raised foods to the market.

“i think that if genetically engineered traits were allowed in organic farming, there could be could be a lot of benefits, because there are pests that are difficult to control (by organic methods),” adamchak says.

pests are an issue for all farmers, but a particular challenge for organic farmers, who are unable to use many pest-resistant pesticides on their crops. with climate change increasing the burden of invasive species and pathogens, a gene modification that could improve pest-resistance could lead to higher yields of organic crops, a win-win for consumers and farmers alike (as long as those extra crops don’t go to waste, of course).

but will the organic farming industry accept gmos?

adamchak didn’t seem overly optimistic at the prospect, which could potentially be a missed opportunity for sustainable food systems going forward.

“the bigger issue as an organic grower is how does the attitudes of organic growers affect agriculture as a whole? because organic agriculture uses only 1% land in the u.s., and 99% is conventionally grown,” adamchak says.

“so if you want to change that system, if you want to make that system more sustainable, using genetically modified traits that reduce pesticide use, that reduce soil erosion depending on how it’s used, this could make that 99% of agriculture more sustainable — less of an impact on the environment, more profit for growers,” he says. “and clearly the attitudes of the organic community have impacted the spread of genetically modified traits and also how they’re perceived by consumers. and i think that’s a problem.”

the farmer-consumer dynamic is challenging: consumers rely on farmers for food, but farmers must produce things consumers will buy. the difficulty lies in creating a sustainable and trusting system that pleases both sides.

moving forward

after gathering these nuances about gmos, i reckoned with what i could do to improve the food system myself. i think the first step, as a scientist and consumer, is to educate oneself about the topic and help spread factual information, which may lessen the fear of gmos in general.

furthermore, supporting sustainable food technologies — gmo, gene altering, or otherwise — may help us address the monumental challenge of creating a more sustainable food system for our future.

one of the largest food producing regions of the world, the central valley is home to massive industrial agriculture operation, small organic farmers, and plant breeders working to stay relevant in a quickly changing industry full of skeptical consumers. 

according to bayer’s holly butka, “it’s a multi-pronged force,” the necessary push to sustainable crops is being driven by consumer demand, the economics of farming and the development of technology helps farmers operate more efficiently.

ultimately though it is a consumer-driven market and farmers and seed companies like bayer want to produce products consumers will buy. when main concerns of consumers are taste, appearance, and sustainability, farmers and seed suppliers have their work cut out for them.

click through the slideshow above to learn more.

as friedman so thoroughly explained, “green” is not just a temporary movement to stop the earth from getting a few degrees warmer. green is very much a buy one, get ten free approach. going green is much larger than simply cutting 1% of the plastic from water bottles. if we do it right, we can actually curb petrodictatorship and help to spread democracy. we can ensure biodiversity, and we can keep our climate in check. we can encourage businesses to further innovate and be more competitive in a market that includes an exponentially expanding and increasingly interconnected middle class (“flat and crowded”). we preserve the only planet that we have for ourselves and our children, and we maintain america’s role as the superpower of that planet. we create jobs and we create an example in efficiency for the entire world to follow. we don’t need to worry about harvesting coal from the depths of a dangerous mine, nor will we fret when the world’s oil runs out. by beginning to act now, america can lead the carbon-free charge into the future.
my immediate reaction to the book was one of fury; half for the stubbornness of our own policymakers and half for how political these very bipartisan issues have become (they affect all of us!). inaction is one of my biggest pet peeves; i pity the child who complains of heat while sitting next to an air conditioner he’s simply too lazy to turn on. our situation here is the same. the standard use of energy seems to be working fine at the moment simply because the public is blind to its effects. as long as people can turn on their pcs, drive their cars, and work in their offices, life is fine. but friedman’s point stands – “the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.” the stone age ended because of man’s ingenuity and a desire to change his own life for the better. we should not need to run out of oil before america finds a solution that is better. our policymakers, though, have chosen to turn a blind eye to the raw facts of the situation (it appears as though washington would benefit from friedman’s research) in favor of forming party opinions for each. since “liberals” want to act to curb global warming, “conservatives” must therefore find ways to discount its legitimacy. i’m as skeptic as they come, but if there are solutions we can implement to prevent us from possibly melting ourselves and our world, i see no reason not to try them.
i must concede, however, that in the energy-climate era i feel like an ant. as i read a book talking about figures in the billions (of dollars), trillions (of pounds of co2), and hundreds (of years), i feel as though i am completely insignificant. there are no “fifty easy ways to save the earth now”; there is nothing that i can do all by myself that will have any real impact. i am not a government official, nor a lobbyist, nor a ceo of a utility company, nor an engineer. even if half the country doesn’t leave the water running when they brush their teeth, our corporations will continue to leave entire buildings illuminated overnight, and coal will continue to power most of our “dumb” utilities.
the book just begs someone to pass it along to a member of congress or someone with actual influence; the average american is sadly overwhelmed. i am a regular college student looking to study business. i know mr. friedman suggested i do my part (as all those get-green-quick guides suggest), but then i’m just sipping a cocktail at the green party, not fueling the green revolution.
how can a student studying business do anything about this? the fact that just about anyone can help is the beauty of greening america. as a business major, i could financially advise developing alternative energy companies. i could become a venture capitalist who funded green startups. with such necessary innovations coming down the line, investing in a stable green-engineering company might be about the safest financial bet in this down economy. i could go on to get my mba, and from a higher position in a company, could reform its practices to be an example in efficiency. i could help to start up a solar power company, much like first solar, and reap the benefits of their eight-hundred-percent production boom. first solar’s success was primarily thanks to germany; i think we need to have the same economic incentives in america. and who could make a better case for that than a bunch of business majors?
the economist in me is all too scared of china’s growth as well. a country with a population of over one billion with a government that obligates them to work together is without a doubt a force to be reckoned with, especially when that force is responsible for expansion and development at the rate china is. the facts friedman presented blow me away; the amount of energy china uses, and the rate at which it needs generate more dirty energy to keep up with demand is staggering. but the chinese government doesn’t grant choice the way ours does, and as friedman mentioned in “china for a day (but not for two)”, its people are quick to change their ways when the government mandates it. massive amounts of cheap labor and a very strong gdp-based approach to communism have made china the economic powerhouse it is today, and america already has entirely too much debt vested in it. should china be able to develop a green approach to their massive energy needs (as they already have begun to do), the american economy will be left in their wake. an america that cannot support itself economically or environmentally is not an america i want to be a part of. during the american revolution, both of the great wars, and the space race, it was american ingenuity and the ability of our nation to act as one that resulted in our successes. if green stays a political issue, the divide will result in a national tragedy. the human race is now running from a bear, and china is sprinting ahead while we stop for a breather.
yes, i am a conservative environmentalist who wants smaller government, but at the same time who wishes there was more government regulation to aid in greening america. i am a petrolhead, a young man with a lust for acceleration and the internal combustion engine, but also someone who finds the idea of a hydrogen car quite interesting. i feel small and insignificant, but at the same time, charged enough to actually do something about the problem. it is conflict like this, amidst many others (interests of big-business utilities, big oil, foreign relations, and gdp to name a few), that are largely responsible for the lack of forward direction when it comes to greening america for the future. but there is just something so inspiring about being a real superpower in the future, unafraid of china and cut loose from the middle east’s oily strings. once again america could take its place as the world’s greatest country, respected instead of hated.
before reading hot, flat, and crowded, i didn’t care about how electrons got to my house, or just how many degrees warmer the earth is. now, i am a conscientious young citizen ready to take a chance and give this green thing a whirl. to those whom this book “depressed” more than anything else, i invite you to feel just as empowered and angry as i do. you people at starbucks can keep your macbooks and priuses and enjoy the eco-chic party until last call. i, on the other hand, want to do something about this. i am ready to abandon the party lines and the political labels, and i think it’s about time washington does the same.
oh, mr. friedman… i hope you print your books on recycled paper.