OMGMO

Jeremy Seifert's documentary, GMO OMG, explores just WTF is in the food we eat.

To say that the debate over GMOs is hot right now is putting it lightly. It's scalding. Touch it with a whisper and someone's going to get burned. Unless you don't so much as skim magazine headlines in the checkout line or watch TV, or unless your Twitter feed is down, or your Facebook has been so ingeniously hacked that all politically unstable content is somehow totally blocked (which means your "social" life consists of Instagram food-porn, viral videos of adorable animals doing adorable things really adorably, and some dude you met once with the uncontrollable desire to tell the world that he's "just chillin with some ramen noodles watching my fav shows #Liveisgreat.") then you've undoubtably heard of GMOs, Genetically Modified Organisms. You may even know what they are, maybe even why they are bad for you. Wait, are they bad for you? Well, scientifically, we're not even sure.

According to the American Association for Advancement of Science:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.  

But if you dig into the nitty-gritty of it all, the answer is a two-sided coin. While there are endless studies, claims, and bouts of common-sense indicating, though not out-right proving, that genetically modified organisms can lead to pejorative and unforeseen effects on people (for instance, lab-mice developing tumors when fed high-dose GMO diets) the scientific studies insofar are lacking. Often times, these scientific studies are either bias or one-sided. Inject a mouse with enough genetically altered material and sooner or later something gnarly will undoubtably happen. Then again, eat copious amounts of carrots and you'll eventually turn orange. 

Before you make your completely objective, self-concluding, non-media-impressed decision on whether GMOs are good or bad, it's absolutely vital that you know that, while GMO commonly references the genetic modification/alteration of food, it's actually a practice used throughout many aspects of life. At least where biochemists are involved. 

You Know GMOs Are Good, Right?

Unfortunately, the social paradigm of genetic modification/engineering is hyper-convoluted. Firstly, the term Genetically Modified Organism is quite vague. A large part of it has to do with the legal definition, which states that, with the exception of human beings, GMOs refer to organisms whose genes have been "altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." We (humans) have been genetically modifying organisms since the days of modern agriculture – about 10,000 years ago. The domestication of wild animals is also a form of genetic modification. Think your chihuahua is the product of natural selection? Think again, Paris Hilton. Incidentally, the Novosibirsk Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Siberia, Russia has been working on domesticating foxes in a thus-far 50-year experiment (PET FOXES, PEOPLE! WHOO!); and we've long been cross-breeding various plant species, allowing for the development of an uncountable variety of aesthetic garden flora.

The confusion over GMOs, however, lies in its name; "GMO" is rather general. Primarily, the social debate and uproar almost exclusively regards food. There are multiple types of genetic modification. Conventional breeding (like with the foxes) involves the cross breeding of different-but-related species, over much time and many generations, to derive the desired genes of one, the other, or both. Transgenic modification, or Genetic Engineering (GE) (what anti-GMO activists largely protest) is genetically engineering organisms by artificially combining DNA of unrelated species. Cisgenic modification artificially alters the genes of related species. The desired outcome of all three types is to obtain a beneficial gene of one organism not found in another. Wikipedia has a relatively simple infograph depicting this (apparently drawn by a four-year-old with Microsoft Paint):

Through these various types of genetic modification, we've been able to come up with some incredibly beneficial organisms. Here are four: 

1. Genetically Modified Mosquitoes. Created by genetically engineering male mosquitoes with a sterile gene, larva born of females infected via mating die before reaching pupa stage. Further, practices treat the larva with tetracycline, allowing them to live, which provides scientists with more sterile males to release into the wild to mate with females. Like STDs for mosquitos – who would oppose that?

A Liger, a la Napoleon Dynamite.

2. Ligers, arguably the most badass genetically modified creatures on earth. Better pictures here.

3. Pharmaceuticals: Genetic altercation of even the most popular animals and plants (yeast, for example), may yield medical benefits. This, of course, doesn't refer to genetically engineering food intended for consumption. But check out this finding from Science Direct about the benefits of transgenic organisms:

Moreover, some yeast did not glycosylate proteins or they added sugars which are not found in human proteins [sic]. Interestingly, genetically modified yeast expressing foreign genes coding for enzymes responsible for glycosylation proved able to secrete substantial amounts of recombinant proteins having carbohydrates almost similar to those found in human proteins. This suggests that yeast could become an essential system to produce pharmaceutical proteins in the coming years.

4. And while there's much to debate about the safety of GMO foods, one thing remains certain: Unless human food-consumption habits change, there is no way to feed the earth's population, without genetically modifying crops to produce higher yield or with more resistant to pests, pesticides, and herbicides.  

You Know GMOs Are Bad, Right?

So why all the hype? Back to that legal definition, the part that says "does not occur naturally." Here's where semantics rightfully come into play: natural. We want our food to be as natural and – please pardon my French here – as not-fucked-with as possible. That's some pretty strong language, but it's a topic many people feel pretty strongly about.

Today, GMO foods undergo such incredible genetic manipulation they're far from how they started. Popular engineering may be lab-produced foods injected with genes to make them bigger, tastier, and idealistically perfect (if your apple is as big as your hand and flawless in shape, it ain't what Johnny Appleseed planted.); they could be foods with added anti-bacteria genes (mmm... strawberry flavored hand sanitizer); or naturally un-occuring, transgenic plants made with animal genes. Even Maurice Sendak couldn't have created a world where that was natural.  As Jeremy Siefert, director of the documentary GMO OMG, stated on Real Time with Bill Maher September 20th: "I've never seen a tomato have sex with a fish." 

Video source: http://www.gmofilm.com

Corn, (maize, as it's known outside of the Western world) is almost non-identical today from its original form, developing into the most widely used ingredient in America thanks to genetic modification. It's original form, Tripsacum, varies from maize by only two genes, yet it looks like this:

Tripsacum. Photo curtesy of Wikipedia.org

Not exactly corn. Not even remotely corn. But this was a semi-natural process (I said, natural earlier; natural genetic modification in wild plants is indeed possible), occurring after cultivation practices were being utilized.

However, most corn grown in North America today features a completely differenty type of genetic modification. The big, bad type. The poisonous and potentially threatening type: Pesticide resistance. Like with most genetic modification these days, this is both good and bad. It is good, obviously, because it's resistant to the chemicals coating it to keep bugs from devouring millions of dollars worth of corn each year. If you read that last sentence, and you're not completely obtuse, you can see why it's bad: we're coating millions of dollars worth of corn (and practically every other fruit and veggie) in a wet layer of synthetic chemicals. And corn is in practically everything we consume – from eating it, to combusting it (ethanol).

Here are three (of a plethora) of actual and potential dangers regarding GMO foods:

1) Allergies: Non-ideginous proteins activated by genetically engineered foods can trigger allergies, some deadly. (On the other hand, what if we could engineer nuts sans the nut-allergy gene? This sounds great, but because there has been no long-term study on the effects of GMOs, such practices may open the door to other threats.)

2) Immune Deficiencies: Remember I mentioned hand-sanitizers in our food? Well, an Iowa State University study confirmed that foods designed with antibiotics incorporated into their DNA, when consumed, can lead to antibiotic build-up; when antibiotic medication is needed to treat serious illnesses, our bodies will have built up a tolerance, thus making the medicine less effective.

3) Poor Economy: If partisan politicians agree – to some degree – on only one thing, it's that to boost the economy the middle class needs a helping hand. Removing cheap beer and Miley Cyrus from the picture, there's no image more iconic of America than that of the farmer. Unfortunately, most farmers have been forced to bend to the strong arm of Monsanto (The Joker in the criminal band of agrobiz). Farmers are free to grow their own seeds, but if their yields can in any way, shape, or form be traced to those of Monsanto (say from wind, run-off, and other movements of Mother Nature), the corporate monstrosity will sue them for everything, only dropping the case if the farmer agrees to grow Monsonto crops. All those government subsidies you hear about go to the top 5% of farms (sound like income levels as a whole?), which make up 75% of all farming income. Because of this, "the net earnings [as of latest data, 2009] from farming activities on 90.5 percent of all farms in America (with sales less than $249,000) was on average $2,615." (eatocracy.cnn.com.)

I See, Said A Blind Society

The single greatest threat to people from GMOs has little to do with science, but rather business. It's safe to say that behind every devious action in the food industry is Monsanto. When Haiti was struck by a massive earthquake in July of 2010, the destruction was incalculable. Playing the philanthropist, Monsanto tried to donate approximately 475 tons of "hybrid corn and vegetable seeds," according to the company website. But, as Jeremy Seifert uncovers in GMO OMG, Haitian farmers turned it away. Why? Because the only pesticide compatible with the seeds was Roundup™, invented and owned by Monsanto; unfathomably poor Haitian farmers would be forced to buy the pesticide in order to harvest the donated seeds. At the next growing season, in twelve-months time, identical seeds and more Roundup™ would have to be purchased. And the year after that. And the year after that, for all of et cetera. 


Monsanto's greed proliferates more within North America. It's common knowledge that 90% of farmers grow GMO crops, corn and soybeans being among the two most prevalent. "Because many processed food products contain soybeans or corn ingredients (e.g. high-fructose corn syrup or soy protein) it's estimated that 60 to 70 percent of processed foods in grocery stores include at least one GE  ingredient." (Colorado State University extension.)At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that in order to sustain the growing population (est. 9 Billion by 2050), we need to change the way we eat and alter the way we grow. But, it's imperative that we do so as little as possible; for instance, only modifying plants to produce greater yields, not more poison-impervious fruit. Likewise, if indeed there are no harmful effects to consuming GMO foods, then there's no reason for their presence in our food to be kept secret, nor should they not be easily identified by anyone who can read a package label. 


Big businesses, especially Monsanto, strive to profit, regardless of the impact of their actions on people or the environment. If accidentally released into the wild, GMO seeds could yield super-weeds, impervious to herbicides. Likewise, GMO crops are usually mono-crops; this means that if something does happen to a seasonal growth, or strand of crop, that and future years' yields stand in danger of being wiped out – an ironic result in the "fight to end world hunger."

With only about 14 years of GMO history, and no studies on the long-term effects of them, I find it somewhat discomfiting to hear Monsanto and other major agrobiz companies argue that  GMOs are not bad for you. After all, it's not that long ago that cigarets "weren't bad for you."

The debate for and against GMOs should stay a heated one. When tempers flare, especially from the public, answers tend to arise. This is bad for big GMO companies. One facet of the anti-GMO argument revolves around the right to know what's in our food. How is it that we can be lucky enough to eat everyday, but unlucky enough to be completely confident of what's in the foods we eat? 

And if you don't believe me, ask these guys:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/gm-mosquito.htm
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-corn-consumption.html
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-957532
http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/07/27/who-are-you-calling-rich-a-small-farmer-shares-some-hard-data/
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2001/l_106/l_10620010417en00010038.pdf
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/LabelGMFood.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.htm
http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/haiti-seed-donation.aspx