- Have you seen this label on your favorite foods,
and maybe even wondered what it meant?
GMO is assured for genetically modified organism,
meaning a food whose DNA has been altered
through genetic engineering.
And if you're at all familiar with these GMO foods,
you probably know they're really controversial.
- We've got news for you.
GMO tomatoes and GMO corn will kill you just as well.
- I believe there's a big, huge problem with GMO foods.
- The science is still inconclusive about GMOs.
- Nah, all of that is nonsense.
The real problem is that they need to fire their PR team.
- You are fired, Piggy, you are fired, fired!
- Because they're a victim
of a widely successful fear-mongering campaign.
The actual reality is GMOs have been produced in the US
for about 30 years,
and are now a big part of our food system.
More than 90% of certain staple crops,
like corn and soybeans, are GMOs.
The truth is GMOs are incredibly valuable.
They increase our output of affordable, nutritious food,
and offer us a way to actually make foods better.
With GMOs, we can create crops that are healthier,
and are disease and drought resistant.
Plus, there's ways to develop GMO crops
that require less water and pesticides,
reducing negative impact on the environment,
and that's crucial because population growth
and climate change already threaten our global food supply.
Despite those benefits, GMOs have a pretty bad reputation.
A 2020 survey found that only 27% of Americans
believed GMO foods were safe to eat.
Let's take a deeper dive
and see what all this controversy is about.
- But we're starting to get evidence now in human beings
that this could actually modify other genes in our bodies,
increased mortality,
significant increase in the incidences of tumors or cancer.
- These ridiculous health claims
have all come from a single rat study
that has been so debunked,
the Royal Society, UK's National Academy of Science,
actually said that this study is flawed in many aspects
of design, execution and analysis,
and that no conclusion should even be drawn from it.
In fact, for over a decade,
millions of people across the globe
have been eating foods made from genetically modified crops
without any reported health issues or even legal cases.
- Gee, I wonder what it's doing to our children.
Maybe that has something to do
with the 400% increase of allergies.
- Research shows GMO foods are no more likely
to cause allergies than non-GMO foods.
Testing GMO crops for transferred allergens
is required during development.
- GMO contains a BT protein toxin,
which is a plant incorporated protective insecticide
that pokes holes in the insect guts
and has been shown to have a similar effect
in animal studies.
- The protein BT toxin does kill insects,
but current research shows it isn't harmful to humans
because our digestive systems actually destroy it.
Just because something is problematic to one species
doesn't mean it's problematic to all.
Otherwise, bear here would never let me eat chocolate.
Part of what makes blatant misinformation around GMOs
so popular is that they aren't just spread
by obvious conspiracy theorists
in fringe corners of the internet.
But GMOs are also villainized by mainstream celebrities,
health news sites, popular brands like Chipotle,
and even famous advocacy groups like Greenpeace.
Whenever I discuss GMOs online,
there are two schools of thought
that I frequently have to debunk.
One is the skewed narrative focusing on natural food.
First of all, there's no established definition
of what natural food means.
If it means food without artificial ingredients,
then GMO foods can certainly be considered natural.
For all the fear-mongering about toxins and chemicals.
The reality is chemicals with long names may be totally safe
and natural ingredients may be deadly.
You know, like cyanide or arsenic.
It's not as simple as saying natural equals healthy.
It's actually such a shame
that so many are sharing their emotional opinions
on the subject without even understanding it.
- [[Interviewer] Do you try to avoid GMOs in your diet?
- I do.
There's just a vibration with GMOs.
For me personally,
just something that I don't particularly
wanna put into my body.
- [Interviewer] What does GMOs stand for?
- Genetically Modified, I don't know.
- This also extends to the organic food label.
For example, people often claim organic produce is healthier
because it's not grown with pesticides.
It's not true though organic farmers still use pesticides,
they're just the organic kind.
And because organic pesticides aren't as tailored
to specific bugs,
farmers typically need to spray more of that.
On the other hand, GMO crops can be engineered
to be pest resistant
so farmers can use less pesticides
or in some cases, none at all.
I gotta emphasize this.
If consuming fewer pesticides is your goal,
then maybe reaching for the GMO might be your best bet.
The other flawed narrative is the belief
that genetic engineering
is some sort of evil new technology.
- It's alive, it's alive, it's alive!
- While science has evolved,
and there are many new genetic engineering techniques,
farmers have practiced selective reading
for most of history just in very low tech ways.
They'd save the best seeds from a harvest
to improve future ones,
or they'd cross-pollinate two varieties
of a plant randomly mixing together all of their genes.
Take corn.
Ears of corn were originally much, much smaller.
Only after a few hundred years
of selective breeding corn became what it is today.
Broccoli, bananas, apples, all have similar stories.
These crops were genetically modified,
just not in a sciencey, evil-looking lab.
So the next time you go food shopping,
remember, most of the fruits and vegetables you see
are genetically modified,
even though very few of them are actually modern GMOs.
Now let's get to the root of the biggest controversy.
- The US Food and Drug Administration
requires that foods be labeled
as GMO or genetically modified,
and obviously those won't be GMO foods,
but a sneaky little way around this now
is that food manufacturers
are calling these genetically modified foods,
bio-engineered.
- Without any real logic behind it,
some groups have been increasingly vocal,
lobbying for mandatory labeling of GMO foods
with actual success in the political sphere.
Getting the USDA to approve GMO labeling,
even labeling foods to indicate
the lack of GMOs has become cool.
If you've been to Whole Foods lately,
you might have seen a label that looks like this.
It's all over the place.
They're issued by an advocacy group
called the Non-GMO Project.
A food brand can get the label by paying for it
and then passing on the extra cost to you,
and shockingly, the label doesn't even mean
the food is fully GMO-free.
It just means the GMO components
don't exceed a certain threshold.
You can find this label
on some absolutely ridiculous products.
Himalayan fine pink salt, bro?
Salt doesn't have genes.
It can't be genetically modified.
It's like marketing gluten-free water.
But what I failed to understand is why are they doing this?
Labeling, GMO foods has been framed
as a consumer right to know issue,
but labeling ultimately biases shoppers
against perfectly healthy and often more affordable foods,
that's just bad practice.
If the evidence says that GMO foods
are as safe and healthy as other foods,
then what's the purpose of the label?
Adding food warnings
that don't have any purpose can create alarm fatigue
where alarm bells become so commonplace
that people start to ignore them.
Just look at Prop 65 in California
where every single product has this sign
warning you about cancer causing compounds.
Honestly, I might as well stick that plaque on my forehead.
Look, I'm very much for consumer's right to know,
and transparency is absolutely important
if a consumer might need to change their behavior
based on the information revealed or labeled.
Someone with high blood pressure or diabetes
might need to regulate their sodium or sugar intake.
Cigarettes have warning labels
to discourage people from smoking
because we know they cause cancer.
But the scientific reality is that there's no action
that someone needs to take based on a GMO label.
It's there solely for marketing purposes.
Bogging down our already inefficient food agencies
with oversight of a pointless marketing label
just seems silly.
In fact, the FDA opposed labeling GMOs for years,
except in the instance
that A GMO product had nutritional differences
from its non GMO counterpart.
That makes sense.
But at least one group completely disagrees.
I'll call that group celebrity quacks.
Famous people who have questionable beliefs about science.
In 2015, Sarah Michelle Geller, Jillian Michaels,
and other celebs participated in PSAs
for the Pro GMO Food Labeling Organization,
Just label It, you know, like Nike.
Gwyneth Paltrow actually met with lawmakers
that very same year to support mandatory labeling.
In response to this activism, a group of moms,
including scientists, farmers, and experts,
who called themselves Grounded Parents,
wrote a letter explaining the basic concepts
about genetic engineering, AKA science,
and asking the celebrities to become better informed.
Boom, dunked on.
It was around the same time
that Greenpeace also jumped on the anti-GMO bandwagon.
They were such a famous
and well-trusted environmental organization.
They weren't even known for their anti-science positions.
But in 2016,
after their ridiculous anti-GMO stands,
over a hundred Nobel Laureates published a plea
to Greenpeace to basically shut up.
- Ooh, burn.
- Even some companies, including one of my favorites,
have also supported going GMO-free.
Chipotle announced in 2015 that it was going GMO-free,
and then hung only non GMO ingredient signs
across its stores.
Three years later,
it became the target of a class action lawsuit
when customers claim those non GMO signs were misleading
because Chipotle's meat and dairy products
came from animals who'd been fed GMO crop
all in the name of transparency, right?
What's particularly frustrating here
is that widespread public distrust
hasn't always been a problem for GMOs.
Back in 1994,
the Flavr Savr tomato
became the first GMO crop to be sold in stores.
Its release was a widely celebrated news event.
The '90s were a simpler time.
The Flavr Savr was genetically engineered
to stay firm and flavorful longer than regular tomatoes.
The company behind the Flavr Savr
wasn't legally required to label it as a GMO food,
but decided to,
because they thought of it as a promotional tactic.
The Flavr Savr flew off the shelves when it first came out,
but then it didn't quite live up to the promises
of superior taste and texture,
and was eventually discontinued in 1997.
The fact that the Flavr Savr wasn't a rousing success
didn't ruin American's appetite for GMO Foods.
Public polling from that time
found that most Americans accepted GMO Foods
and were even excited about them.
But just a few years later,
the tides of public opinion started to shift.
By 2001, a poll found that 52% of people
believe GMO foods were unsafe,
and the needle hasn't moved much since then.
So what happened to the GMO optimism captured in the '90s?
Some have speculated that the biggest factor
might have been the rise of the natural
and organic food movement,
criticizing GMOs in order to better sell
its own natural products.
I don't know if that's the sole reason,
but clearly the lack of knowledge
by the general public is staggering.
The thing is, genetic engineering like any other technology,
isn't inherently good or bad, it's just a tool,
and their benefits or harms lie in their use.
And don't get me wrong, genetic engineering can go wrong,
and there's certainly risks,
especially if it's not regulated properly.
That's why careful oversight is a must.
And unlike supplements,
GMOs are regulated
and the rules have only tightened over time.
The FDA, USDA and EPA share responsibility
to make sure GMOs meet food safety standards.
Every GMO crop should be and is tested rigorously
before being approved for commercial use.
Certain ones even have targeted benefits.
Golden Rice is engineered to combat vitamin A deficiency,
the leading global cause of blindness in children.
Arctic apples don't turn brown, reducing food waste.
There's even a GMO potato,
engineered to have less of a chemical called acrylamide,
which is suspected to increase cancer risk.
So here's where I have to ask you,
is there a path towards renewed public trust
and excitement in GMOs?
Well, numerous studies have actually found a link
between people having accurate scientific info on GMOs
and having positive attitudes towards them.
Those scientists actually concluded
"It seems that they only need to be exposed
to a little bit of accurate information
to alter their opinions."
Well, hopefully now,
you've got your little bit of information.
Now go check out this video
of the famous celebrity quack, Gwyneth Paltrow.
As always, stay happy and healthy.
(upbeat music)