GMOs Part 7: Inherently safer AND more tested

In Part 6, I finally revealed the definition of a GMO: a food genetically modified using genetic engineering, a targeted technique that edits a single known gene. A NON-GMO is everything else, most of which have also been genetically modified, but with far less targeted techniques, like breeding, that change thousands of unknown genes.

In this post, I will explore genetic engineering and its effect on food safety...

Q: Is there something inherently dangerous about genetic engineering that warrants it being singled out from the other techniques?

A: NO. On the contrary, because genetic engineering is so targeted, it not only results in far fewer changes, but changes that are known on a molecular level. We choose the gene, we know its product, and we know what that product does. This makes genetic engineering inherently safer. For example...

Q: Which food is inherently safer: 1 or 2?

Food 1 - Golden Rice

• Rice modified with genetic engineering therefore a GMO

• The gene for Vitamin A is spliced in.

Food 2 - Ruby Red Grapefruit

• Grapefruit modified with mutation breeding therfore a NON-GMO

• Seeds are exposed to gamma radiation to accelerate mutations until the desired trait appears - redder and sweater.

Answer: Food 1, the GMO Golden Rice, is inherently safer. It is less changed, and more understood. A single gene is added, vitamin A, with only one known product, vitamin A. Vitamin A is measurable and we understand how vitamin A works.

The NON-GMO Rudy Red Grapefruit, on the other hand, likely has thousands of modified genes with thousands of products. We don't know. All we know is the desired trait (redder and sweeter), not the genes or their products that caused it.

This brings up two important concepts of food safety:

• Substantial equivalence - If a food is modified, but "in substance" is equivalent to the unmodified form, it is considered safe. Genetic engineering is safer than breeding because there are far fewer changes, and therefore, greater substantial equivalence.

• Mechanistic understanding - If a food is modified, but the mechanism of the modification, and the products of the modification, are understood and safe, the food is considered safe. Genetic engineering is safer than breeding because it edits a known gene with a known product.

The double standard

Here’s the interesting part and the double standard… Despite the inherent safety of genetic engineering, currently, the FDA and USDA require that GMOs are tested, and non-GMOs are not. As a result, Golden Rice, with its single known genetic change, has been extensively tested, whereas Ruby Red Grapefruit, with its thousands of unknown changes, has not.

The ironic consequence of this double standard is that GMO foods can actually claim to be a little safer than non-GMO foods.

How are GMO foods tested for safety?

As I explained in prior posts, determining the long-term safety of any food is exceptionally challenging. This is why we can’t agree on even the most basic foods. Nonetheless, there are three somewhat helpful ways to test GMOs for safety:

1. Nutritional content - Vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients can be measured in the lab. This helps establish "substantial equivalence".

2. Allergenicity - GMOs can potentially affect the allergenicity of foods because proteins are changed and food allergies are reactions to proteins. For GMOs, allergenicity testing is carried out in human subjects.

3. Animal toxicology - Vast amount of animal data exists because many GMOs are used as animal feed. (There's more than a single retracted rat study).

Every GMO in use has been tested with the above standards; this includes industry funded studies, non-industry funded studies, and studies across multiple countries. The results of these test are: all GMOs are nutritionally identical to their NON-GMO counterparts (or even enhanced, like golden rice), they have the same allergenicity (or sometimes less, like allergen-free peanuts), and they do not cause disease in animals. This is why 280 different scientific agencies have provided statements affirming the safety of GMOs. It's rare to get this degree of scientific consensus on an any topic in science, let alone food science.

Is this label helpful?

Now that you understand the difference between GMOs and NON-GMOs, let's reconsider this dichotomy and its labelling...

Q: Is this label helpful?

A: I hope you're starting to see the answer is... NO. The purpose of any food label is to convey useful health information: should you eat this food or not. All this label does is single out a specific technique of genetic modification. A technique that, ironically, is both inherently safer AND more tested than the other techniques.

Despite all of this, the anti-GMO lobby continues to push for a ban on GMOs. In fact, they claim that since the introduction of GMOs there's been an increase in disease. In other words, GMOs have ALREADY made us ill. Is this true? In my next post, we will explore this observational claim. Stay tuned...