Column: In the know about GMOs

W ith ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon this November proposing the mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, the safety of GMOs is once again becoming a subject of popular conversation.

It might be tempting to typecast the conflict between advocates of GMO-labeling and their opponents as a David vs. Goliath struggle, with concerned citizens seeking to protect consumers against poison-peddling big businesses. But the science behind GMOs themselves tells a different story and should not be colored by (potentially justifiable) anti-corporate sentiments.

Put simply, genetic modification involves making changes to an organism’s DNA. Although conventional farming methods such as selective breeding have altered the genetic makeup of plants and animals for millennia, modern techniques can create new combinations that would not occur in nature. This causes the organisms to produce different proteins that affect their growth and development, such as providing resistance to insects, drought and herbicides.

Today, 93 percent of corn and 94 percent of soybeans planted in the U.S. in 2014 possess at least one genetic modification. The safety of GMOs has been studied extensively since their debut, and the World Health Organization best summarizes the findings of these studies: Foods containing GMOs are “not likely to present risks for human health.”

This conclusion is echoed by the Society of Toxicology, a body of scientists who evaluate the potential harm of chemical compounds. The Society of Toxicology’s extensive review of GMOs is especially instructive because it evaluates the mechanisms by which GMOs in food could potentially cause harm.

For instance, could the introduced DNA itself be toxic? No; up to a gram of foreign DNA is consumed every day, and the body degrades dietary DNA into its chemical building blocks.

Could the new proteins cause allergies? While theoretically possible, GMOs are extensively tested during their development and reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA requires the same safety testing for genetically modified foods as others and has reported that foods containing GMOs “evaluated through the consultation process have not been more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants.”

Lacking scientific evidence of malevolence, it is likely that anti-GMO feelings stem in part from popular distrust of the companies that sell them. Agribusinesses are among the most infamous corporations in the public eye and are often associated with controversial lawsuits against farmers accused of re-planting patented seeds and concerns of the global food supply becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

These concerns are valid, and there is an important discussion to be had about the role biotechnology companies should play as corporate citizens. But this discussion should not conflate facts with opinions, especially when discussing the safety of foods containing GMOs.