What Non-GMO Means for the Non-Crazy Person

Nothing brings out the impassioned side of the populace quite like food, and messing with that food gets people really crazy. I’m referring, of course, to the idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the resultant proliferation of non-GMO labels. Here’s what non-GMO means, devoid of emotion.

 

Biology 101

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) contains instructions for the proper functioning of all living things (organisms), explaining why it is often called the code of life. The molecule contains numerous genes, with each gene typically coding for one specific thing, e.g. a protein that carries out a specific function for the organism.

How exactly does this work? A gene is transcribed from DNA to another molecule called ribonucleic acid (RNA) which in turn is translated to a protein. (This is an oversimplification, but it’s sufficient to understand what comes next.)

As human knowledge about DNA has grown markedly in the past century—the structure of the molecule was discovered in 1953—our ability to modify DNA has also grown. And therein lies the concept of genetic modification—making intentional changes to DNA in order to then get a desired protein that performs a desired function (or to not get an undesired protein that performs an undesired function).

 

More on Genetic Modification

While the discovery of the structure of DNA is a relatively recent phenomenon, the concept of heredity is not. Ever since humans began domesticating plants thousands of years ago, they’ve noticed certain advantageous traits in such plants. Through selective breeding, these traits have become more common. (The same concept applies to dogs as well.) In other words, the idea of what is natural has been a bit hazy for quite some time. What has changed in more recent times is the relative ease and precision with which we can modify DNA (genes) to create a desired outcome.

Without getting too technical and accounting for the inherent limitations of any terminology, the umbrella term often used to describe the direct manipulation of DNA in this domain is genetic engineering (also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation). How exactly this is achieved can vary—new technology such as CRISPR has made the process much easier—and the resultant organism is considered genetically modified (GM), giving way to abbreviations such as GMO, GM crop, and GM food.

The largest use of GMOs comes with large-scale agricultural crops (GM crops). Such modifications can serve a variety of purposes, including increasing yields, increasing consistency, providing resistance to pests, disease, or drought, providing resistance to pesticides or herbicides, and adding nutrients to prevent nutritional deficiencies in the consuming population. In the US, over 90 percent of planted corn, soybeans, and cotton have been genetically modified.

 

Why the Emphasis on Non-GMOs?

As indicated at the outset of the article, emotion has played some role in the opposition to GMOs. Intertwined in that resistance is a mix of misinformation and anti-corporate sentiment, i.e. resentment towards large companies that are profiting from what are perceived to be unsafe practices.

The reality is that the simple modification of DNA to change a protein should not affect the safety of an organism as it pertains to human consumption (assuming that the protein of interest is not toxic to humans). In fact, many large scientific organizations such as the World Health Organization, Royal Society (UK), American Medical Association, and US National Academy of Sciences have verified the safety of genetic engineering. To take it one step further, as the human population continues to grow, optimizing genetic engineering techniques may be important to maintain a safe and stable food supply.

With all of the above said, there is undoubtedly room to question ongoing practices. Any time you’re manipulating genes, you leave yourself open to unintended consequences. One example would be the spread of introduced genes to organisms in whom these genes could disrupt ecosystems. Another example would be the eventual dominance of engineered organisms, leading to the extinction of non-engineered forms and thereby limiting biodiversity.

Furthermore, because GM crops are often herbicide resistant, this welcomes the excessive use of herbicides that can have environmental and perhaps health consequences. (A counterargument is that pest-resistant crops require less pesticides.)

Some argue that having a large chunk of our food supply in the hands of a small number of powerful companies—often holding patents for GM crops—carries risks, including the chance that scientific studies funded by these companies can be biased in their favor.

Finally, the idea that GM crops are needed to feed the human population is criticized as many such crops are not even destined for human consumption.

Given these reasonable concerns, food labels indicating non-GMO have become commonplace. Of course, what does and doesn’t qualify as GM food is not always perfectly straightforward, especially in items with multiple ingredients from multiple sources. Some view this labeling as unnecessary (given the lack of documented health concerns) and perhaps even a marketing ploy, citing the use of non-GMO labels on things that don’t even contain genetic material (like salt). An alternative to such labels is the proposed use of the term bioengineered on foods that do in fact contain ingredients from genetically modified sources. With all this room for debate, it’s not surprising that the regulation of GMOs and their labeling varies widely by jurisdiction.

 

At the end of the day, it seems logical to study each genetically modified entity on a case-by-case basis, understanding that the change made could have implications ranging from nothing to something. So the next time someone asks you what non-GMO means, go ahead and say non-Generalizable Medical Opinion. Just be prepared for some pushback.