# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feed Your Mind Main Page en Español (Spanish)
Am I eating foods that come from GMO crops?

It is very likely you are eating foods and food products that are made with ingredients that come from GMO crops. Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar. A few fresh fruit and vegetables are available in GMO varieties, including potatoes, summer squash, apples, papayas, and pink pineapples. Although GMOs are in a lot of the foods we eat, most of the GMO crops grown in the United States are used for animal food.

To make it easier for consumers to know if the foods they eat contain GMO ingredients, the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains a list of bioengineered foods available throughout the world. Additionally, you will start seeing the "bioengineered" label on some of the foods we eat because of the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

GMOs, Farm to Table

What GMO crops are in the United States?
Corn:
Corn is the most commonly grown crop in the United States, and most of it is GMO. Most GMO corn is created to resist insect pests or tolerate herbicides. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn is a GMO corn that produces proteins that are toxic to certain insect pests but not to humans, pets, livestock, or other animals. These are the same types of proteins that organic farmers use to control insect pests, and they do not harm beneficial insects, such as ladybugs. GMO Bt corn reduces the need for spraying insecticides while still preventing insect damage. While a lot of GMO corn goes into processed foods and drinks, most of it is used to feed livestock, like cows, and poultry, like chickens.
Soybean:
Most soy grown in the United States is GMO soy. Most GMO soy is used for food for animals, predominantly poultry and livestock, and making soybean oil. It is also used as ingredients (lecithin, emulsifiers, and proteins) in processed foods.
Cotton:
GMO cotton was created to be resistant to bollworms and helped revive the Alabama cotton industry. GMO cotton not only provides a reliable source of cotton for the textile industry, it is also used to make cottonseed oil, which is used in packaged foods and in many restaurants for frying. GMO cottonseed meal and hulls are also used in food for animals.
Potato:
Some GMO potatoes were developed to resist insect pests and disease. In addition, some GMO potato varieties have been developed to resist bruising and browning that can occur when potatoes are packaged, stored, and transported, or even cut in your kitchen. While browning does not change the quality of the potato, it often leads to food being unnecessarily thrown away because people mistakenly believe browned food is spoiled.
Papaya:
By the 1990s, ringspot virus disease had nearly wiped out Hawaii's papaya crop, and in the process almost destroyed the papaya industry in Hawaii. A GMO papaya, named the Rainbow papaya, was created to resist ringspot virus. This GMO saved papaya farming on the Hawaiian Islands.
Summer Squash:
GMO summer squash is resistant to some plant viruses. Squash was one of the first GMOs on the market, but it is not widely grown.
Canola:
GMO canola is used mostly to make cooking oil and margarine. Canola seed meal can also be used in food for animals. Canola oil is used in many packaged foods to improve food consistency. Most GMO canola is resistant to herbicides and helps farmers to more easily control weeds in their fields.
Alfalfa:
GMO alfalfa is primarily used to feed cattle-mostly dairy cows. Most GMO alfalfa is resistant to herbicides, allowing farmers to spray the crops to protect them against destructive weeds that can reduce alfalfa production and lower the nutritional quality of the hay.
Apple:
A few varieties of GMO apples were developed to resist browning after being cut. This helps cut down on food waste, as many consumers think brown apples are spoiled.
Sugar Beet:
Sugar beets are used to make granulated sugar. More than half the granulated sugar packaged for grocery store shelves is made from GMO sugar beets. Because GMO sugar beets are resistant to herbicides, growing GMO sugar beets helps farmers control weeds in their fields.
Pink Pineapple:
The GMO pink pineapple was developed to have pink flesh by increasing the levels of lycopene. Lycopene is naturally found in pineapples, and it is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink.

What about animals that eat food made from GMO crops?

Similarly, the DNA from GMO animal food does not make it into the meat, eggs, or milk from the animal. Research shows that foods like eggs, dairy products, and meat that come from animals that eat GMO food are equal in nutritional value, safety, and quality to foods made from animals that eat only non-GMO food.

Learn more about GMO Crops and Food for Animals.

Who makes sure animal food is safe?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safety of GMO and non-GMO food for animals. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine manages this responsibility. FDA requires that all food for animals, like food for human foods, be safe for animals to eat, be produced under clean conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be accurately labeled.

Are there GMO animals in the food supply?

Yes. FDA has approved an application allowing the sale of the AquAdvantage Salmon to consumers. The AquAdvantage Salmon has been genetically modified to reach an important growth point faster. FDA has also approved an alteration in the GalSafe pig for human food consumption and potential therapeutic uses. The GalSafe pig was developed to be free of detectable alpha-gal sugar on its cell surfaces. People with Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) may have allergic reactions to alpha-gal sugar found in red meat (e.g., beef, pork, and lamb). FDA has determined that food from the AquAdvantage Salmon and the GalSafe pig are as safe and nutritious to eat as food from non-GMO salmon and pigs.

Are GMOs used to make anything besides food?

When you hear the term "GMO" you probably think of food. However, techniques used to create GMOs are important in creating some medicines as well. In fact, genetic engineering, which is the process used to create GMOs, was first used to make human insulin, a medicine used to treat diabetes. Medicines developed through genetic engineering go through an in-depth FDA approval process. All medicines must be proven to be safe and effective before they are approved for human use. GMOs are also used in the textile industry. Some GMO cotton plants are used to create cotton fiber that is then used to make fabric for clothing and other materials.
How GMOs Are Regulated in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many GMO crops are used to make ingredients that Americans eat such as cornstarch, corn syrup, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, or granulated sugar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although most notable organizations and research suggest that GMO foods are safe and sustainable, some people claim they may harm your health and the environment.

GMOs, short for genetically modified organisms, are subject to a lot of controversy.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GMO seeds are used to plant over 90% of all maize (corn), cotton, and soy grown in the United States, which means that many of the foods you eat likely contain GMOs ( 1).

This article helps explain what GMOs are, provides a balanced explanation of their pros and cons, and gives guidance on how to identify GMO foods.

"GMO," which stands for genetically modified organism, refers to any organism whose DNA has been modified using genetic engineering technology.

In the food industry, GMO crops have had genes added to them for various reasons, such as improving their growth, nutritional content, sustainability, pest resistance, and ease of farming ().

While it's possible to naturally give foods desirable traits through selective breeding, this process takes many generations. Also, breeders may struggle to determine which genetic change has led to a new trait.

Genetic modification significantly accelerates this process by using scientific techniques that give the plant the specific desired trait.

For example, one of the most common GMO crops is Bt corn, which is genetically modified to produce the insecticide Bt toxin. By making this toxin, the corn is able to resist pests, reducing the need for pesticides ().

GMO crops are incredibly common in the United States, with at least 90% of soy, cotton, and corn being grown through genetic techniques ().

While GMO crops make farming much easier, there is some concern around their potential effect on the environment and their safety for human consumption - specifically surrounding illnesses and allergies ().

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and USDA maintain that GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption ().

Summary
GMOs are food items that have been made using genetic engineering techniques. They comprise 90% of soy, cotton, and corn grown in the United States and are deemed safe for human consumption.

GMO foods may offer several advantages to the grower and consumer.

For starters, many GMO crops have been genetically modified to express a gene that protects them against pests and insects.

For example, the Bt gene is commonly genetically engineered into crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans. It comes from a naturally occurring bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis.

This gene produces a protein that is toxic to several pests and insects, which gives the GMO plants a natural resistance. As such, the GMO crops don't need to be exposed to harmful pesticides as often ().

In fact, a 2020 study asserts that GMO technology has reduced global chemical pesticide use by 8.3% and indirectly reduced greenhouse gas emissions because farmers don't need to spray their fields as often ().

Other GMO crops have been modified with genes that help them survive stressful conditions, such as droughts, and resist diseases like blights, resulting in a higher yield for farmers (, , ).

Together, these factors help lower the costs for the farmers and consumers because it allows a greater crop yield and growth through harsher conditions.

Additionally, genetic modification can increase the nutritional value of foods. For example, rice high in beta carotene, also called golden rice, was developed to help prevent blindness in regions where local diets are chronically deficient in vitamin A ().

Moreover, genetic modification may be used simply to enhance the flavor and appearance of foods, such as the non-browning apple ().

In addition, current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption ().

Summary
GMO foods are easier and less costly for farmers to grow, which makes them cheaper for the consumer. GMO techniques may also enhance foods' nutrients, flavor, and appearance.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe, there is some concern around their long-term safety and environmental impact ().

Here are some of the key concerns around GMO consumption.

Allergies

There is some concern that GMO foods may trigger an allergic reaction.

This is because GMO foods contain foreign genes, so some people worry that they harbor genes from foods that may prompt an allergic reaction.

A study from the mid-1990s found that adding a protein from Brazil nuts to GMO soybeans could trigger an allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. However, after scientists discovered this, they quickly abandoned this GMO food ().

Although allergy concerns are valid, there have been no reports of allergic reactions to GMO foods currently on the market.

According to the FDA, researchers who develop GMO foods run tests to ensure that allergens aren't transferred from one food to another ().

In addition, research has shown that GMO foods are no likelier to trigger allergies than their non-GMO counterparts ( 16).

Yet, if you have a soy allergy, both GMO and non-GMO soy products will prompt an allergic reaction.

Cancers

Similarly, there's a common concern that GMO foods may aid the progression of cancers.

Because cancers are caused by DNA mutations, some people fear that eating foods with added genes may affect your DNA.

This worry may stem partly from an early mice study, which linked GMO intake to a higher risk of tumors and early death. However, this study was later retracted because it was poorly designed (, , ).

Currently, no human research ties GMO intake to cancers, and there is no evidence that eating GMOs will change your DNA.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated that there's no evidence to link GMO food intake to an increased or decreased risk of cancer ().

All the same, no long-term human studies exist. Thus, more long-term human research is needed.

Other environmental and health concerns

Although GMO crops are convenient for farmers, there are environmental concerns.

Most GMO crops are resistant to herbicides, such as Roundup. This means that farmers can use Roundup without fear of it harming their own crops.

However, a growing number of weeds have developed resistance to this herbicide over time. This has led to even more Roundup being sprayed on crops to kill the resistant weeds because they can affect the crop harvest (, , 23).

Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are subject to controversy because animal and test-tube studies have linked them to various diseases (, , ).

There is new evidence that glyphosate exposure may increase the relative risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma by 41% (, ).

There has also been concern that pollen from Bt crops may negatively impact honeybees, but there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence to support this yet (, , ).

That said, more long-term human research is necessary.

Summary
The main concerns around GMOs involve allergies, cancer, and environmental issues - all of which may affect the consumer. While current research suggests few risks, more long-term research is needed.

Although GMO foods appear safe for consumption, some people wish to avoid them. Still, this is difficult since most foods in your supermarket are made with ingredients from GMO crops.

GMO crops grown and sold in the United States include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, pink pineapple, summer squash, and a few apple varieties ().

In the United States, no regulations currently mandate the labeling of GMO foods.

Yet, as of January 2022, the USDA requires food manufacturers to label all foods containing GMO ingredients ( 33).

That said, the labels won't say "GMO" but instead the term "bioengineered food." It will display either as the USDA bioengineered food symbol, listed on or near the ingredients, or as a scannable code on the package with directions, such as "Scan here for more information" ( 34).

Presently, some foods may have a third-party "Non-GMO project verified" label, which indicates that the product contains no GMOs. However, this label is voluntary.

It's also worth noting that any food labeled "100% organic" does not contain any GMO ingredients, because U.S. law prohibits this. However, if a product is simply labeled " organic," it may contain some GMOs ( 35, 36).

In the European Union (EU), foods with more than 0.9% GMO ingredients must list "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [name of food]." For foods without packaging, these words must be listed near the item, such as on the supermarket shelf ( 37).

Summary
As of 2022, the USDA requires that foods with GMO ingredients must be labeled "bioengineered food". You can avoid GMOs by limiting GMO ingredients, eating locally, or buying 100% organic.

GMOs are foods that have been modified using genetic techniques.

Most foods in your local supermarket contain GMO ingredients because they're easier and more cost-effective for farmers, which makes them cheaper for the consumer.

In the United States, foods grown using GMO techniques include corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, papaya, pink pineapple, summer squash, and a few varieties of apples.

Although current research suggests that GMO foods are safe for consumption, some people are concerned about their potential health effects. Due to a lack of long-term human studies, more research is needed.

As of 2022, all foods in the United States that contain GMO ingredients must have the term "bioengineered food" somewhere on the packaging or a scannable code to show that it has GMO ingredients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are very controversial. This article reviews the pros and cons of GMO foods, as supported by science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... Levon Biss for The New York Times

Overblown fears have turned the public against genetically modified food. But the potential benefits have never been greater.

Credit... Levon Biss for The New York Times

Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

Give this article Give this article Give this article

Listen to This Article

Audio Recording by Audm

To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.
On a cold December day in Norwich, England, Cathie Martin met me at a laboratory inside the John Innes Centre, where she works. A plant biologist, Martin has spent almost two decades studying tomatoes, and I had traveled to see her because of a particular one she created: a lustrous, dark purple variety that is unusually high in antioxidants, with twice the amount found in blueberries.

At 66, Martin has silver-white hair, a strong chin and sharp eyes that give her a slightly elfin look. Her office, a tiny cubby just off the lab, is so packed with binders and piles of paper that Martin has to stand when typing on her computer keyboard, which sits surrounded by a heap of papers like a rock that has sunk to the bottom of a snowdrift. "It's an absolute disaster," Martin said, looking around fondly. "I'm told that the security guards bring people round on the tour." On the desk, there's a drinks coaster with a picture of an attractive 1950s housewife that reads, "You say tomato, I say [expletive] you."

Martin has long been interested in how plants produce beneficial nutrients. The purple tomato is the first she designed to have more anthocyanin, a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory compound. "All higher plants have a mechanism for making anthocyanins," Martin explained when we met. "A tomato plant makes them as well, in the leaves. We just put in a switch that turns on anthocyanin production in the fruit." Martin noted that while there are other tomato varieties that look purple, they have anthocyanins only in the skin, so the health benefits are slight. "People say, Oh, there are purple tomatoes already," Martin said. "But they don't have these kind of levels."

The difference is significant. When cancer-prone mice were given Martin's purple tomatoes as part of their diet, they lived 30 percent longer than mice fed the same quantity of ordinary tomatoes; they were also less susceptible to inflammatory bowel disease. After the publication of Martin's first paper showing the anticancer benefit of her tomatoes, in the academic journal Nature Biotechnology in 2008, newspapers and television stations began calling. "The coverage!" she recalled. "Days and days and days and days of it! There was a lot of excitement." She considered making the tomato available in stores or offering it online as a juice. But because the plant contained a pair of genes from a snapdragon - that's what spurs the tomatoes to produce more anthocyanin - it would be classified as a genetically modified organism: a G.M.O.

That designation brings with it a host of obligations, not just in Britain but in the United States and many other countries. Martin had envisioned making the juice on a small scale, but just to go through the F.D.A. approval process would cost a million dollars. Adding U.S.D.A. approval could push that amount even higher. (Tomato juice is known as a "G.M. product" and is regulated by the F.D.A. Because a tomato has seeds that can germinate, it is regulated by both the F.D.A. and the U.S.D.A.) "I thought, This is ridiculous," Martin told me.

Martin eventually did put together the required documentation, but the process, and subsequent revisions, took almost six years. "Our 'business model' is that we have this tiny company which has no employees," Martin said with a laugh. "Of course, the F.D.A. is used to the bigger organizations" - global agricultural conglomerates like DowDuPont or Syngenta - "so this is where you get a bit of a problem. When they say, 'Oh, we want a bit more data on this,' it's easy for a corporation. For me - it's me that has to do it! And I can't just throw money at it."

Martin admitted that, as an academic, she hadn't been as focused on getting the tomato to market as she might have been. (Her colleague Jonathan Jones, a plant biologist, eventually stepped in to assist.) But the process has also been slow because the purple tomato, if approved, would be one of only a very few G.M.O. fruits or vegetables sold directly to consumers. The others include Rainbow papayas, which were modified to resist ringspot virus; a variety of sweet corn; some russet potatoes; and Arctic Apples, which were developed in Canada and resist browning.

It also might be the first genetically modified anything that people actually want. Since their introduction in the mid-1990s, G.M.O.s have remained wildly unpopular with consumers, who see them as dubious tools of Big Ag, with potentially sinister impacts on both people and the environment. Martin is perhaps onto something when she describes those most opposed to G.M.O.s as "the W.W.W.s": the well, wealthy and worried, the same cohort of upper-middle-class shoppers who have turned organic food into a multibillion-dollar industry. "If you're a W.W.W., the calculation is, G.M.O.s seem bad, so I'm just going to avoid them," she said. "I mean, if you think there might be a risk, and there's no benefit to you, why even consider it?"

The purple tomato could perhaps change that calculation. Unlike commercial G.M.O. crops - things like soy and canola - Martin's tomato wasn't designed for profit and would be grown in small batches rather than on millions of acres: essentially the opposite of industrial agriculture. The additional genes it contains (from the snapdragon, itself a relative of the tomato plant) act only to boost production of anthocyanin, a nutrient that tomatoes already make. More important, the fruit's anti-inflammatory and anticancer properties, which seem considerable, are things that many of us actively want.

Nonetheless, the future of the purple tomato is far from certain. "There's just so much baggage around anything genetically modified," Martin said. "I'm not trying to make money. I'm worried about people's health! But in people's minds it's all Dr. Frankenstein and trying to rule the world."

Image

Credit... Bobby Doherty for The New York Times

In the three decades since G.M.O. crops were introduced, only a tiny number have been developed and approved for sale, almost all of them products made by large agrochemical companies like Monsanto. Within those categories, though, G.M.O.s have taken over much of the market. Roughly 94 percent of soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified, as is more than 90 percent of all corn, canola and sugar beets, together covering roughly 170 million acres of cropland.

At the same time, resistance to G.M.O. foods has only become more entrenched. The market for products certified to be non-G.M.O. has increased more than 70-fold since 2010, from roughly $350 million that year to $26 billion by 2018. There are now more than 55,000 products carrying the "Non-G.M.O. Project Verified" label on their packaging. Nearly half of all U.S. shoppers say that they try not to buy G.M.O. foods, while a study by Jennifer Kuzma, a biochemist who is a director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, found that consumers will pay up to 20 percent more to avoid them.

For many of us, the rejection of G.M.O.s is instinctive. "For people who are uncomfortable with this, the objection is that it isn't something that would ever happen in nature," says Alan Levinovitz, a professor of religion and science at James Madison University. "With genetic engineering, there's a feeling that we're mucking about with the essential building blocks of reality. We may feel OK about rearranging genes, the way nature does, but we're not comfortable mixing them up between creatures."

Our distrust might also stem from the way G.M.O.s were introduced. When the agribusiness giant Monsanto released its first G.M.O. crop in 1996 - an herbicide-resistant soybean - the company was in need of cash. By adding a gene from a bacterium, it hoped to create crops that were resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in its trademark herbicide, RoundUp, enabling farmers to spray weeds liberally without also killing the soy plant itself - something that wasn't possible with traditional herbicides. Commercially, the idea succeeded. By 2003, RoundUp Ready corn and soy seeds dominated the market, and Monsanto had become the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds, responsible for more than 90 percent of G.M.O. crops planted globally.

But the company's rollout also alarmed and antagonized farmers, who were required to sign restrictive contracts to use the patented seeds, and whom Monsanto aggressively prosecuted. At one point, the company had a 75-person team dedicated solely to investigating farmers suspected of saving seed - a traditional practice in which seeds from one year's crop are saved for planting the following year - and prosecuting them on charges of intellectual-property infringement. Environmental groups were also concerned, because of the skyrocketing use of RoundUp and the abrupt decline in agricultural diversity.

"It was kind of a perfect storm," says Mark Lynas, an environmental writer and activist who protested against G.M.O.s for over a decade. "You had this company that had made Agent Orange and PCBs" - an environmental toxin that the E.P.A. banned in 1979 - "that was now using G.M.O.s to intensify the worst forms of monoculture farming. I just remember feeling like we had to stop this thing."

That resistance was compounded because early G.M.O.s - which focused largely on pest- and herbicide-resistance - offered little direct benefit to the consumer. And once public sentiment was set, it proved hard to shift, even when more beneficial products began to emerge. One of these, Golden Rice, was made in 1999 by a pair of university researchers hoping to combat vitamin A deficiency, a simple but devastating ailment that causes blindness in millions of people in Africa and Asia annually, and that can also be fatal. But the project foundered after protests by anti-G.M.O. activists in the United States and Europe, which in turn alarmed governments and populations in developing countries.

"Probably the angriest I've ever felt was when anti-G.M.O. groups destroyed fields of Golden Rice growing in the Philippines," says Lynas, who publicly disavowed his opposition to G.M.O.s in 2013. "To see a crop that had such obvious lifesaving potential ruined - it would be like anti-vaxxer groups invading a laboratory and destroying a million vials of Covid vaccine."

In recent years, many environmental groups have also quietly walked back their opposition as evidence has mounted that existing G.M.O.s are both safe to eat and not inherently bad for the environment. The introduction of Bt corn, which contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally insect-resistant bacterium that organic farmers routinely spray on crops, dropped the crop's insecticide use by 35 percent. A pest-resistant Bt eggplant has become similarly popular in Bangladesh, where farmers have also embraced flood-tolerant "scuba rice," a variety engineered to survive being submerged for up to 14 days rather than just three. Each year, Bangladesh and India lose roughly four million tons of rice to flooding - enough to feed 30 million people - and waste a corresponding volume of pesticides and herbicides, which then enter the groundwater.

In North America, though, such benefits can seem remote compared with what we think of as "eating naturally." That's especially true because, for many of us, G.M.O.s and the harms of industrial agriculture (monocultures, overuse of pesticides and herbicides) remain inextricably linked. "Because of the way that G.M.O.s were introduced to the public - as a corporate product, focused on profit - the whole technology got tarred," Lynas says. "In people's minds it's 'Genetic engineering equals monoculture equals the broken food system.' But it doesn't have to be that way."

Credit... Bobby Doherty for The New York Times

The greenhouse where Martin grows her tomatoes is surprisingly modest: a small and somewhat grubby building filled with leggy plants in plastic pots. Martin often has multiple projects going at one time, and as she walked me down the row, she pointed out a (non-G.M.O.) tomato bred to be rich in vitamin D; another with high levels of resveratrol, the antioxidant compound in red wine; and one that a postdoc, Eugenio Butelli, is trying to modify to produce serotonin, a neurotransmitter used in antidepressant drugs. When I asked whether antidepressant tomatoes were next, Martin shrugged. "He's playing," she said. "A lot of what we do is play."

Even if the serotonin-producing tomatoes proved possible, she added, they wouldn't be sold in grocery stores but would simply be added to the growing list of "biologics": plants or bacteria that have been genetically engineered to produce the active ingredient in medications, including ones for diabetes, breast cancer and arthritis. Martin herself recently created a tomato that produces levodopa, the primary drug for treating Parkinson's disease, in hopes of making the drug both more affordable and more tolerable. (The synthetic version of levodopa can cause nausea and other side effects, and it also costs about $2 a day - more than some patients, especially those in developing countries, can afford.)

Farther down the row was the next-generation purple tomato: a dark blue-black variety called Indigo that Martin has created by crossing the high-anthocyanin purple tomato with a yellow one high in flavonols, an anti-inflammatory compound found in things like kale and green tea, making it even richer in antioxidants. The Indigo, which is also a G.M.O., is too new to have been evaluated for health benefits, but Martin is hopeful that it will have even more robust health effects than the purple tomato.

One pot over, Martin stopped at a purple-​tomato plant hung with a single luscious cluster of fruit. "There's a lovely one," Martin said, picking it gently and brushing off a few white flecks. "Interestingly, the high-anthocyanin tomatoes also have an extended shelf life. We're not sure why, but they seem to be more resistant to fungal infection, which is what causes tomatoes to rot."

Such unanticipated genetic changes can cut both ways, of course. In 1996, researchers determined that soybeans containing a gene from a Brazil nut could trigger a reaction in someone who is allergic. (The soybeans were experimental and never intended for the market.) Likewise, instead of lasting longer, Martin's tomato could have turned mealy or become more bitter. Theoretically, it could even have become dangerous. Had Martin added genes that increased production of solanine - a toxic chemical produced by plants in the nightshade family, including tomatoes and potatoes - the resulting fruit could have been lethal.

For anyone wondering, I sampled Martin's purple and Indigo tomatoes, and eating them has so far not had any alarming effects, at least that I can detect. But of course, I can't say for sure. What if genetically modified produce turns out to have delayed or unpredictable consequences for our health? Something we can't easily observe or test for, or perhaps even detect until it's too late?

The fear of such unforeseen effects - what Kuzma calls "unknowingness" - is perhaps consumers' biggest concern when it comes to G.M.O.s. Genetic interactions, after all, are famously complex. Adding a new gene - or simply changing how a gene is regulated (i.e., how active it is) - rarely affects just a single thing. Moreover, our understanding of these interactions, and their effects, is constantly evolving. Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-G.M.O. Project, echoed this point. "Anyone who knows about genetics knows that there's a lot we don't understand," Westgate says. "We're always discovering new things or finding out that things we believed aren't actually right." Charles Benbrook, executive director of the Heartland Health Research Alliance, also notes that any potential health impacts from G.M.O.s would be stronger in whole foods - produce we consume raw, unprocessed and in large amounts - than in ingredients like corn syrup.

'For the majority of people, the anxiety around G.M.O.s is almost entirely untethered to an understanding of what's happening at a scientific level.'

Despite that, plant geneticists tend not to be overly concerned about the risks of G.M.O.s, as long as the modifications are made with some care. As a 2016 report by the National Academy of Sciences found, G.M.O.s were generally safe, though it allowed that minor impacts were theoretically possible. Fred Gould, a professor of agriculture who was chairman of the committee that prepared the 600-page report, noted that genetic changes that alter a metabolic pathway - the cellular process that transforms biochemical elements into a particular nutrient or compound, like the anthocyanins in Martin's tomato - were especially important to study because they could cause cascading effects.

Gould likened these pathways to the plumbing in a house. If a genetic edit shuts off one pipe - say one that generates a bitter compound - the building blocks for that compound will start flowing elsewhere, the way a blocked pipe will force water into neighboring channels. The results of this redirection, Gould told me, are poorly understood. "Do the extra precursor chemicals end up producing more of something else?" Gould asked. "Or do they just stay as precursors? For some pathways, plant biologists know the answer. But in other cases we don't."

But he also noted that this problem wasn't unique to G.M.O.s. Years ago, for instance, farmers crossbred cucumbers to reduce the amount of cucurbitacin (a bitter compound that repels spider mites) in the peel. But because those cucumbers were made with conventional breeding, growers weren't required to sequence the genome of the new variety, or even to look at its nutritional and toxicity profile, as they would with something genetically engineered. "We've never really asked a conventional breeder: 'Hey, when you turn off the production of cucurbitacin by crossbreeding, does something else get produced?'" Gould added. "Or do the levels of other important compounds go up or down?"

Gould emphasized that many genetic modifications to food are trivial and extremely unlikely to have any measurable effect on people. And even the effects of precursor changes would mostly be slight. "I mean, we've been changing all these things already with conventional breeding, and so far we're doing all right," he added. "Making the same change with genetic engineering - there's really no difference."

Credit... Bobby Doherty for The New York Times

If we don't find these sorts of distinctions very reassuring, it's in part because our extravagant concern about G.M.O.s reflects something more fundamental: the fact that most of us don't really understand how genes work. As several scientists I spoke with pointed out, a gene is just a narrow set of biological instructions, many of which appear across a wide range of species. The snapdragon gene in Martin's tomato, for instance, is known as a transcription factor: essentially, a kind of volume knob that regulates how much of something a particular gene will produce. That something could be anthocyanin, or it could be a dangerous toxin, but the knob itself isn't the problem, nor is the process by which it was added. "For the majority of people, the anxiety around G.M.O.s is almost entirely untethered to an understanding of what's happening at a scientific level," Levinovitz says. "But that actually makes the anxiety harder to address, rather than easier."

This is particularly true around food. Whether or not people actually understand where their fruits and vegetables come from, Levinovitz says, we think that we do - and are disturbed when that changes. The philosophical term for this is epistemic opacity. "When you imagine you know how something works, or where it comes from, that's comforting," he added. "So when you hear that an apple was genetically modified, it's like, What does that mean? It's alienating."

For many consumers, Levinovitz notes, the word "natural" has become a heuristic: a mental shortcut for deciding if something is good or safe. "We hear it all the time, and it is often true. Why do we have chronic pain? Because we weren't meant to sit at a desk for hours. Why is the sea turtle not reproducing? Because of the artificial light we introduced on beaches. It's not a very consistent view" - there are all kinds of unnatural things that nobody worries about, like Netflix and indoor plumbing - "but it's become a kind of shorthand for this world we feel like we've lost."

In practice, of course, almost everything we grow and eat today has had its DNA altered extensively. For millenniums, farmers, discovering that one version of a plant - usually a random genetic mutant - was hardier, or sweeter, or had smaller seeds, would cross it with another that, say, produced more fruit, in hopes of getting both benefits. But the process was slow. Simply changing the color of a tomato from red to yellow while preserving its other traits could take years of crossbreeding. And tomatoes are one of the easiest cases. Introducing even a minor change to a cherry through crossbreeding, I was told, could take up to 150 years.

To those who worry about G.M.O.s, that slowness is reassuring. "There's a sense that, yes, these things have been altered," Levinovitz noted. "But they've been altered over a very long time, in the same way that nature alters things."

Yet the way nature alters things is also profoundly haphazard. Sometimes a plant will acquire one trait at the expense of another. Sometimes it actually becomes worse. The same is true for agricultural crossbreeding. Not only is there no way to control which genes are kept and which are lost; the process also tends to introduce unwanted changes. The technical term for this is "linkage drag": all the unintended, and unknown, genes that get pulled along during cross-pollination, like fish in a net. Commercial berry growers spent decades trying to create a domesticated version of the black raspberry through crossbreeding but never succeeded: the thornless berries either tasted worse or produced almost no fruit, or they developed other problems. It's also why meeting the needs of modern agriculture - growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days - can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren't as sweet as they used to be. "With conventional breeding, you're basically just shuffling the genetic deck," the agricultural executive Tom Adams told me. "You're never going to carry over only the gene you want."

In recent years genetic-engineering tools like CRISPR have offered a way around this imprecision, making it possible to identify which genes control which traits - things like color, hardiness, sweetness - and to change only those. "It's far more precise," says Andrew Allan, a plant biologist at the University of Auckland. "Instead of rolling the dice, you're changing only the thing you want to change. And you can do it in one generation instead of 10 or 20."

Last year, the U.S.D.A. ruled that plants that had undergone simple cisgenic edits - changes to the plant's own DNA, of the kind that could theoretically be created by years of traditional crossbreeding - would not be subject to the same regulation as other G.M.O.s. And some people are arguing that it's time to reconsider how G.M.O.s are regulated as well, especially when it comes to small growers like Martin. From a regulatory perspective, Allan pointed out, all G.M.O.s are treated the same, regardless of the modification and regardless of the scale. "Whether you're a corporation that wants to plant millions of acres of pest-resistant corn or someone who's made a lovely little tomato that could save lives, it's all the same process," he said. Allan noted that his current project, the red flesh apple, contains a single gene taken from a crab apple which increases its antioxidants. "It's an extremely low-risk change," he said. "We're literally just taking a gene from one kind of apple and putting it into another. But it is still, demonstrably, a G.M.O."

The policy is partly a holdover from the early days of genetic engineering, when less was known about the process and its effects. But it has persisted, in part because of powerful anti-G.M.O. campaigning. Eric Ward, co-chief executive of the agricultural technology company AgBiome, described the situation as "stuck in a closed loop." He went on: "People think, Well, if you've got this really strict regulatory system, then it must be really dangerous. So it becomes self-reinforcing."

For Martin, this has created a strange catch-22. Grocery stores are afraid to carry something like a genetically modified tomato because they worry that consumers will reject it. Growers and businesses are afraid of investing in one for the same reason. Genetic engineering, Ward notes, has become far more accessible since the first G.M.O. crops were introduced in the 1990s. "But it's turned into this thing that only half a dozen companies in the world can afford to do, because they've got to go through all this regulatory stuff." He paused. "It's ironic. The activists that first objected to G.M.O.s did it because they didn't trust big agribusiness. But the result now is that only big companies can afford to do it."

Credit... Bobby Doherty for The New York Times

A few days before traveling to Norwich, I joined Martin at the Royal Society in London for the Future Food conference, a series of talks on genetic engineering in agriculture. There I met Haven Baker, a founder of a company called Pairwise, which was started to create fruits and vegetables that are genetically edited but not G.M.O."I don't think we can change people's minds about G.M.O.s," Baker said. "But gene editing is a clean slate. And maybe then G.M.O.s will be able to follow."

In his talk, Baker noted that there are hundreds of kinds of berries in the world. But among those we commonly call berries, we eat just four: strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and blackberries. There's a reason the other varieties rarely reach us. Sometimes the fruit rots within days after picking (salmonberries), or the plant puts out fruit for only a few weeks in summer (cloudberries). Sometimes the plant doesn't produce much fruit at all or is too thorny or sprawling for the fruit to be picked without a vast amount of labor. As Joel Reiner, a horticulturalist at Pairwise, would later put it, "Berries always have some tragic flaw."

Black raspberries, one fruit that Pairwise hopes to bring to market, used to be widely grown in North America, until a virus decimated them. (The red raspberries we eat now originally came from Turkey.) The revived version, which will be in field trials in 2024, has been engineered to be thornless and seedless, while retaining the fruit's signature jammy flavor.

More recently, the company began a similar project with vegetables. Baker says that we underestimate the mediocrity of most grocery-store produce, which tends to be tasteless and also offers little in the way of novelty. On top of that, most vegetables just aren't very appealing, especially compared with processed foods. Vegetables take work to prepare, vary in quality and can be bitter or woody. They're also perishable, often going bad before we get around to cooking them. "Especially if you're on a budget, you hate the idea of wasting food," Megan Thomas, one of Baker's colleagues, noted. "You buy processed food, you can put it in the freezer or in the pantry for eight months and not worry about it."

These drawbacks have affected our diet. Only 10 percent of Americans eat the U.S. recommended daily allowance of fruit and vegetables, and teenagers eat even less. And that isn't because the standard is particularly high: In an entire year, the average American consumes just a few heads of broccoli. "So how do we change that?" Baker asked. "People already know that they're supposed to be eating vegetables. They just aren't doing it. But if we can use gene editing to make broccoli slightly less bitter, maybe people - and especially kids - will eat more of it, and therefore be getting more fiber and more vitamins. Which might make a difference in their long-term health."

Not long after the conference, I flew to North Carolina to meet with Baker and his co-founder, Tom Adams. Before starting Pairwise, Baker and Adams each worked at large companies that invested in G.M.O. crops: Adams at Monsanto and Baker at Simplot, where he oversaw the development of a potato that produces less acrylamide, a carcinogen, when fried. (Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, provided some of the initial funding for Pairwise and retains the option to commercialize any innovation in row crops, though not in consumer produce.)

Pairwise's office is in an airy former textile mill that also houses a yoga studio, a tattoo parlor and several artist studios. When I showed up in February 2020, the area was just recovering from a winter storm that brought snow and black ice. Inside the greenhouses, though, it was warm and humid. "It's a great place to work in the winter," said Reiner, who tends to Pairwise's plants. "In the summer it can get rough."

In anticipation of my visit, Reiner had set up samples from the company's "superfood greens project," which he described as creating "something that's essentially lettuce but healthier." Baker noted that Americans trying to eat well often order salads, but around half of those are made with iceberg or romaine lettuce, which have few nutrients and very little fiber. "If those empty leaves could be swapped for a healthy green, it would be a big nutrition boost," he said. The problem is that nobody really likes the taste of healthy greens. "Do you want to guess what percent of the leafy green market is kale?" Baker asked at one point. "From what we can gather, it's about 6 and a half percent. And the thing is, kale is known to be extremely good for you. It's very rich in fiber and micronutrients: vitamins and minerals. But people don't like to eat it."

In theory, gene editing could change that. Pairwise's initial lettuce alternative, mustard greens, are in the same family as kale, Reiner explained, and have better nutritional value. But they're extremely pungent, a trait the company hopes to minimize. For the tasting, Reiner laid out two varieties of genetically altered mustard greens. The first was beautiful: a dark green leaf veined with red, like a miniature chard. The edited version tasted extremely mild - perfect for salad - but when Reiner talked with consumer researchers, they complained that the leaves were too red. ("It's OK to have a little bit of red, like some leaf lettuces," Reiner explained. "But people expect most of what they see in the bag to be green.")

The second variety was more recognizable: a big, frilly, light green leaf that resembled the mustard greens I often buy - and then fail to eat - from the farmers' market. That version was also extremely, almost inedibly, strong. Just nibbling the edge of a leaf cleared my sinuses like eating wasabi. "The compound that you're tasting is called allyl isothiocyanate," Reiner said as I dabbed at my watering eyes. "It's not made until you chew it. The plant contains both the enzyme and the compound that converts it - but it holds them separate. When you chew, they combine to make something that tastes like horseradish. That's why you have that little delay when you first bite into it, before it hits you."

By comparison, the genetically edited version was delightful, if almost unrecognizable: mild to the point of sweetness, with a pleasant, springy texture. It also has the advantage of looking more like romaine lettuce, and with its larger size and greater frilliness, it does a better job, as Reiner puts it, of "filling up the plate." It seemed like something that I would happily eat, and in the months after the tasting, as I slogged through my usual salads, I found myself looking forward to the day when I could buy Pairwise's mustard greens. I liked the idea of getting all that extra nutrition - the vitamins, the fiber - without the punishing pungency. But I also found myself worrying. If I got used to eating greens that were genetically edited to be milder, would I lose my tolerance for funkier ones, like bitter rapini or peppery radishes? At what point would I not want to eat even the local greens from the farmers' market?

After Baker's talk at the Future Food conference, a member of the audience voiced the same concern: He was terrified, he said, by the prospect of using genetic engineering to "change what is natural just to meet people's taste." Rather than bending the natural world to our palates, shouldn't we be adapting ourselves to the world? I put this question to Heather Hudson, who oversees Pairwise's vegetable projects. Hudson smiled grimly. Modifying people's taste, she said, is extremely difficult. An individual might manage it, by training her palate to appreciate, say, the slight bitterness of radicchio, but as a public health strategy it's essentially hopeless. "I actually started out in nutrition, hoping to change how people ate," Hudson went on. "But changing people's behavior is hard." There's also a big difference between what we virtuously say we want and what we actually buy, let alone consume.

This disconnect is something that Baker has thought about as well. With berries, Baker noted: "People definitely like them better when they're sweeter. They don't want sour berries, they want sweet berries!" From a purchasing perspective, he added, berries are in competition with "cheap sugar": candies and cookies. "So, then you ask, should we even be editing these berries to make them sweeter? Have we then made these healthy berries more like candy?" He shook his head. "But the flip side is I don't see us making progress on fruits and vegetables if we don't make them more palatable at some level."

For all of Pairwise's innovations, there's a significant limit to how much a plant can be altered without making it a G.M.O. Insect-resistant crops like Bt corn and eggplant, for instance, rely on a gene from a bacterium; neither plant has a gene capable of performing the same function. Even Martin's purple tomato would have been harder to make without using the transcription factor from snapdragons - although it would theoretically be possible. In general, it's easy to stop an existing gene from functioning, but much harder to use gene editing to add a new trait or function.

If Pairwise's fruits and vegetables succeed with consumers, they will almost certainly open the door to other produce made through various kinds of genetic engineering. But getting shoppers to trust that these products are safe requires building confidence in how they're regulated. "For a G.M.O., you'd want to ask: Is there anything in this which is toxic? Are there any novel proteins, or anything else potentially allergenic?" Lynas says. "And you'd do a compositional analysis. It's basic food-safety stuff, really." Gould and his co-authors on the National Academy of Sciences report have floated a more meticulous alternative: Researchers would compare the chemical and nutritional profiles of a genetically modified fruit or vegetable against existing varieties we're already eating. "We have technologies now that allow you to check thousands of traits, to see if anything has changed," Gould told me. "Why not use them to look at whether, you know, the vitamin C content in the orange you've made has gone down or stayed the same?"

'We've been changing all these things already with conventional breeding, and so far we're doing all right. Making the same change with genetic engineering - there's really no difference.'

Should these sorts of comparisons become standard, they could determine, at a molecular level, whether there's a measurable difference between the tomatoes and apples we're already eating and the genetically modified version. Paradoxically, these comparisons might also reveal just how much ordinary breeding has already done to create the very changes we fear that G.M.O.s introduce: lowering a vegetable's nutritional value, say, or increasing an allergen or invisibly altering the biochemical makeup of a plant in ways that could affect our long-term health. Conversely, they may show that G.M.O.s are just as safe, if not safer, than foods that have been altered more conventionally.

Providing such safeguards for G.M.O. fruits and vegetables should be reassuring. But just as someone who distrusts vaccines tends to persist in that belief even when presented with abundant evidence of safety and efficacy, those who distrust G.M.O.s are unlikely to change their views until there's a pressing reason. One possibly persuasive factor is climate change. As Allan notes, the global population is only increasing: By 2050, it will have gone up by two billion, and all those people need to be fed. "So where's that extra food going to come from?" Allan says. "It can't come from using more land, because if we use more land, then we've got to deforest more, and the temperature goes up even more. So what we really need is more productivity. And that, in all likelihood, will require G.M.O.s."

Others believe that we'll embrace G.M.O.s only when the alternative is to lose something we value. For years, the Florida citrus industry has been plagued by "citrus greening," a bacterial disease that is currently being controlled - with limited success - by sprayed antibiotics and pesticides. "If it comes down to buying orange juice that's G.M.O., or not buying any orange juice, what are you going to choose?" the grower Harry Klee told me. "It's the same thing that happened with the papaya in Hawaii. At some point, the consumer is going to have to decide what really matters to them."

One of those things might be the very biodiversity that G.M.O.s have helped diminish. As agriculture has industrialized, genetic diversity has shrunk profoundly, with monocultures (or a limited number of hardy varieties) replacing what was once a cornucopia of wild varieties. One study found that before G.M.O.s were even introduced, we'd lost 93 percent of the genetic diversity in our fruits and vegetables. In the early 1900s, farmers in Iowa regularly grew pink-fleshed Chelsea watermelons, which were known for being intensely sweet but have now all but disappeared because they're too delicate for shipping. Blenheim apricots, once widely cultivated in California, have a sublime, honeyed flavor and a delicate blush-mottled skin, but also bruise easily and ripen from the inside out, confusing consumers. As a result, fresh Blenheims are now almost impossible to find, even though, as the food writer Russ Parsons put it, they're the apricot that "reminds you of what that fruit is supposed to taste like."

Genetic engineering and G.M.O.s could help undo these losses, restoring rare and delicate heirloom varieties that were once abundant but have now all but disappeared. One appealing vision is for small growers and academics to figure out what tiny modification would make Blenheims slightly more durable, while preserving everything else about the texture and flavor. While the apricot will most likely never be hardy or controllable enough for mass production, it might be made sturdy enough to allow small producers to plant an orchard that's sustainable.

It's not just the most fragile fruits that we're losing - or may soon lose. Cherries, for instance, are highly sensitive to rain and frost, a problem that makes them especially vulnerable to climate change. They're also extremely seasonal, ripening all at once over the span of just a few weeks, rather than growing year-round. Faced with labor shortages and shrinking profits, some growers have begun talking about converting their cherry orchards to apples, which keep better and are less risky. To prevent that from happening, Hudson suggested that cherries could be made easier to pick, and perhaps grown year-round, like blueberries (which until recently were also highly seasonal). "Doing that means the farmer gets stability, and the workers get stability," she added.

But we're unlikely to see these kinds of projects while G.M.O.s remain the exclusive product of global agrochemical companies. While a researcher at an agricultural college might be interested in bringing back the Blenheim - or creating a wonderful new antioxidant tomato - the financial payoff is nonexistent. "Imagine you're a big company," says Ward, the AgBiome chief executive. "You can put a dollar into an insect-control trait in soybean and bring in 10 to 15 billion dollars. Or you can put a dollar into a healthier tomato that at peak might be worth a few million dollars. It's pretty simple financial calculation."

There are some signs that the future of small-scale, bespoke G.M.O. produce may already have begun. In late April, Cathie Martin told me that the U.S.D.A. had recently updated its regulations to allow more G.M.O. plants to be grown outside, without a three-year field trial or in tightly contained greenhouses. (The exceptions are plants or organisms with the potential to be a pest, pathogen or weed.) In the wake of this change, Martin and Jones are planning to make the purple tomato available first to home gardeners, who could grow it from seed as soon as next spring - well before the commercially grown tomato reaches grocery stores. (U.S.D.A. approval is expected by December.) They're currently testing six different varieties, to find the most flavorful. "When we first developed the purple tomato, it was home gardeners who were most interested in it," Martin noted. "And with home gardening, it's an opt-in system. It's up to you whether you want to grow it."

It was an intriguing idea. Months earlier, while browsing a website called The Garden Professors, I noticed that a home gardener named Janet Chennault had posted a query asking where she could buy G.M.O. seeds. Others had wondered the same thing. "I would love to try some G.M. vegetable seeds in my garden," a woman named Lorrie Delehanty said.

After some searching, I managed to track down Delehanty, who had recently retired and was living in Charlottesville, Va. Over the phone, she described herself as having "a little tiny backyard in the middle of the city" that she and her husband had worked hard to homestead, planting blackberries along the fence line and creating a bird sanctuary around the vegetable plot. She was interested in G.M. seeds, she said, because she did her own canning and freezing, "and I'm always looking to grow something different."

When I asked what kind of thing she was looking for, Delehanty grew animated. "Something with the sweet, smoky flavor of a scorpion pepper without the screaming heat," she began. "Also potatoes that resist bacterial scab. I'm sick and tired of getting scabby potatoes. The purple tomato - I would try that in a heartbeat." She paused. "Oh, and bigger blackberries!"

Jennifer Kahn is a contributing writer for the magazine and the narrative-program lead at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. Levon Biss is a British photographer known for his extremely magnified images of natural subjects like insects and seeds. Bobby Doherty is a photographer based in Brooklyn who focuses on studio still-life photography. His first book, "Seabird," is a collection of moments observed from 2014 to 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning to Love G.M.O.s (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overblown fears have turned the public against genetically modified food. But the potential benefits have never been greater. Credit... Levon Biss for The New York Times Send any friend a story As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

# data[].attributes.body
Can stream on Amazon Prime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMO OMG director and concerned father Jeremy Seifert is in search of answers. How do GMOs affect our children, the health of our planet, and our freedom of choice? And perhaps the ultimate question, which Seifert tests himself: is it even possible to reject the food system currently in place, or have we lost something we can't gain back? These and other questions take Seifert on a journey from his family's table to Haiti, Paris, Norway, and the lobby of agra-giant Monsanto, from which he is unceremoniously ejected. Along the way we gain insight into a question that is of growing concern to citizens the world over: what's on your plate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMO OMG explores the systematic corporate takeover and potential loss of humanity's most precious and ancient inheritance: seeds. Jeremy Seifert investigates how loss of seed diversity and corresponding laboratory assisted genetic alteration of food affects our children, our planet and freedom of choice everywhere. Can we take back our food, heal the planet, and live sustainably?

# data[].attributes.body
How bread is an integral part of all societies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest on Cooked

Need something to lull you into a relaxing streaming sleep? This list has you covered.

By Kayla Cobb * 1597 Shares

The National Geographic series, which just hit Netflix, will add some much-needed peace to your life.

By Meghan O'Keefe * 670 Shares

Forget big books and costly classes. All you need to get cooking is the internet!

By Meghan O'Keefe * 634 Shares

"It wasn't just watching my book get produced on a stage - it was this deepening and extending of themes in the book to places I didn't know about."

More From Decider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cooked | Where to Stream and Watch | Decider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Latest on Cooked Need something to lull you into a relaxing streaming sleep? This list has you covered. By Kayla Cobb * 1597 Shares The National Geographic series, which just hit Netflix, will add some much-needed peace to your life. By Meghan O'Keefe * 670 Shares Forget big books and costly classes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Purchasing or renting FOOD EVOLUTION via these Video-On-Demand (VOD) platforms will allow you to watch the film in your home. This VOD purchase or rental does not include Public Performance Rights (PPR). For more about licensing, please see our Screening & License FAQ. To screen the film for a group or purchase an institutional copy for your school, business or community group, please visit: https://www.foodevolutionmovie.com/host-a-screening/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purchasing or renting FOOD EVOLUTION via these Video-On-Demand (VOD) platforms will allow you to watch the film in your home. This VOD purchase or rental does not include Public Performance Rights (PPR). For more about licensing, please see our Screening & License FAQ.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, is an Independent Consultant with Strategic Trainings and Expansion. This article is the first of a two-part series analyzing the documentary "Food Evolution."
Recently, a documentary was released which claimed to bring science to the polarized genetically modified organism (GMO) debate, settle the relevant issues of the safety, and prove the value of these technologies for global food security. Although it claims to adhere to science, wrapping itself around the narration of Neil deGrasse Tyson, a closer look at "Food Evolution" shows that it is a slick propaganda piece.

Unlike previous attempts by pro-GMO industry and others to advance their cause, "Food Evolution" is being widely circulated on college campuses and has been mentioned as an Academy Award nominee.

Director Scott Hamilton Kennedy adamantly denies that the film is propaganda. The online Oxford dictionary defines propaganda as: "Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." The points of view promoted by the film are clear: GMOs are safe to eat, and needed to feed the world, especially given the threats of climate change and an increasing population. According to the film, science is settled on these issues, and those that disagree are fearmongers. But the film distorts the important debate about how to produce food in ways that are affordable, just, and environmentally sound, and does a huge disservice to its viewers.

Others have already raised serious issues with the film. Professor Marion Nestle, prominent nutrition scientist at New York University, found her appearance in the film seriously out of context. She requested that her sections be removed, which director Scott Hamilton Kennedy refused to do. Nestle called the film propaganda in her blog.

Michael Pollan, respected food writer and journalism professor at the University of California, Berkeley, also felt betrayed by the filmmaker and agreed with Nestle. A letter advancing several arguments about the biases and inaccuracies of the film was signed by 45 mostly doctorate-level scholars and academic scientists.

The film was funded by the Institute for Food Technologists (IFT) which includes academic scientists (such as Nestle), but is also funded by the GMO industry. IFT's most recent president was an executive from DuPont and Monsanto, and the president elect is from DuPont. Kennedy claims that he had free rein in making the film, but that does not of itself demonstrate that the industry did not influence him.
Unsupported Premises
The film rests on the idea that GMOs will be needed to ensure food security, but it spends most of its time defending the dietary safety of these foods. There is little discussion about how GMOs would address food security and reduce the tremendous harm from industrial agriculture, let alone ensure food equity.

Instead, there is extensive discussion of two GMO crops: disease-resistant banana and virus-resistant papaya in Hawaii. We are, it seems, supposed to assume that these GMOs establish the value of the technology toward establishing food security. The former is an important African staple, but the GMO banana is not yet available to farmers. It faces many hurdles exemplified by previous GMO failures like GMO virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya, protein-enhanced cassava, and cassava-resistant to mosaic virus, or the extensive technical and other problems encountered by beta-carotene (pro-vitamin A) enriched "golden rice" 20 years after it was first developed. The second crop, virus-resistant papaya, is limited to Hawaii and comprises a tiny percent of commercially grown GMO crops.

The dearth of successful GMOs, after 30 years of development, actually suggest that producing beneficial GMOs is not nearly as straightforward as the film implies. But whatever the reasons, the limited number of successful GMO traits, and the domination of a few industrial GMOs, needs discussion, not dismissal.

By strongly emphasizing a small-acreage crop like Hawaiian papaya, the film not only largely avoids the overwhelming on-the-ground reality of most GMOs for the past 20 years, but thereby avoids much of the available science and data about the technology that is associated with those crops.

By largely conflating potential harm from GMOs with food safety, the film ignores the many other legitimate concerns about the technology. While food safety has been a major concern of many GMO activists, many biological and social scientists as well as other activists have focused attention on concerns about the concentration of the GMO/seed industry, the nexus of GMOs with environmentally and socially harmful industrial agriculture, patents, negative environmental consequences of GMOs, and loss of food sovereignty. The film almost entirely ignores these issues.

Kennedy has claimed that his focus was dictated by the practical need to limit the issues covered. But because his meme is science, those limits should have included issues that scientists-natural and social-are concerned with rather than an almost exclusive focus on an issue favored by some non-scientist activists.

But even the science that is included in the film is heavily biased in favor of GMOs. For example, the film does not mention a major science assessment that challenges the basic premise of the film. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in its May 2016 report, found that GMOs had not increased crop productivity overall, either in industrialized or less-developed countries. It also found that while GMOs might contribute to food security, this is highly contingent on how it is developed. And it concluded that there are alternative ways to achieve food security. The NAS is the most prestigious science society in the U.S., so it is a big and inexplicable omission for a film supposedly based on science to ignore these findings.

It is also questionable whether GMOs will be a useful approach to addressing the threat of climate change. For example, late in the film, a black South African GMO maize farmer, one of the only 1 percent of black farmers there who grow GMO maize, says he is hopefully waiting for GMO drought tolerant varieties.

But not mentioned in the film is that conventional breeding is producing dozens of drought-tolerant maize varieties for Africa, while genetic engineering has produced one mediocre variety that is not yet available in Africa.

It is also revealing that the film presents a few farmers from developing countries who support GMO crops, but ignores the many who oppose or are critical of them for reasons ranging from loss of control of seeds and food sovereignty to risk to the environment. Organizations like La via Campesina or ROPPA in Africa represent a very large number of farmers and have thoughtful and cogent critiques of GMOs, including concerns based on science. Again, it is striking that a one-sided perspective is provided when at the least, accuracy would require a much broader presentation of these issues.

This is not to say that some GMOs could not potentially have some positive impacts in specific instances, but rather that we have other viable alternatives to address these global challenges. These important alternatives, such as agroecology or other forms of crop genetic improvement, are not addressed in the film, with the exception of organic farming, which will be discussed in part two of this series.
Emphasizing the 1 Percent Over the 99
The overemphasis of GMO banana and papaya over the corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola that make up more than 99 percent of GMO acres turns the real-world situation on its head.

"Food Evolution" devotes a disproportionately small segment to dominant herbicide-resistant crops, and the glyphosate herbicides they were designed to use. And, once again, the discussion is limited to food safety. But even for this narrow topic, the film gets the science wrong.

For example, "Food Evolution" refers to a peer-reviewed paper from 2012 by Charles Benbrook that first documented the higher use of herbicides in recent years in the U.S. due to engineered crops. The film then argues that the amount of pesticides used is not the important point, but rather the toxicity of the pesticides, and that glyphosate is less toxic than herbicides it replaced. To cement this critical point, a figure is flashed on the screen, apparently from an authoritative source, that shows glyphosate with apparently lower toxicity than other herbicides. A graph is shown depicting supposedly decreasing toxicity of herbicides over time.

Unfortunately, this analysis is wrong because it ignores the actual measures of toxicity used by regulators like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The measure of toxicity in the film is the dose needed to rapidly kill 50 percent of the exposed populations, so-called acute (short-term) toxicity. This is a seriously incomplete measure of overall toxicity, which should include long-term or chronic toxicity, such as the ability to cause cancer or diseases like Parkinson's. Most herbicides, including most that glyphosate replaced, have relatively low acute toxicity, so it is not usually a practical concern, while chronic toxicity can be more important.

The most prominent international body that evaluates carcinogenicity, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), published a widely discussed evaluation of glyphosate in 2015-well before "Food Evolution" was finished-that concluded that the herbicide was a probable carcinogen. But the IARC assessment, which contradicts the films' assertion about the safety of glyphosate, is not even mentioned in the film. This assessment was conducted by 17 highly qualified and independent scientists, who came to their conclusion unanimously. When a proper assessment of toxicity is made, glyphosate can no longer be considered generally less toxic to people than the herbicides it replaced.

Kennedy dismissed the validity of IARC's glyphosate assessment, and the agency itself. This is in sharp contrast to 100 scientists who co-authored a paper in 2015 supporting the scientific strength and accuracy of IARC cancer assessments over the years.

Kennedy repeated a common invalid criticism that IARC concludes that most things it evaluates may cause cancer, implying that their assessments are wrong or meaningless. But IARC evaluates substances for which there is already considerable evidence of carcinogenicity. So it is not surprising that many of the substances IARC evaluates turn out to be possible, probable, or confirmed carcinogens.

Kennedy is also simply wrong about IARC conclusions. He is quoted as saying that "like 90 percent" of what IARC evaluates are found to be probable carcinogens. In fact, more than half (about 52 percent) of the IARC assessments were found to not be classifiable, only 7 percent probable carcinogens, and 12 percent carcinogens.

Kennedy also makes another point which has some merit-that IARC conducts a hazard assessment, not a full-risk assessment. Hazard refers to inherent toxicity, but risk also depends upon exposure to a substance like glyphosate-i.e. how much and for how long. But IARC does review real-life exposure through epidemiological studies, and although weaker than the toxicology research for glyphosate, found some evidence of higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in farmers.

Hazard assessment remains important because exposure can increase over time, which also increases overall risk. And the amount of glyphosate has been increasing dramatically in recent years. The highest levels of glyphosate use have occurred only in the past decade, within the 10 years or more that NHL and other cancers may take to develop. In other words, even if there was not enough exposure in the past to produce unequivocally measurable increases in epidemiology studies, increasing exposure may change that given enough time for cancers to develop.

Kennedy also refers to controversy concerning the head of the IARC glyphosate panel, Aaron Blair, based on small bits of testimony from an on-going court case, as a reason for his mistrust of IARC's assessment. But the story about Blair was not published until June 14, 2017, just 10 days before "Food Evolution" was released. Kennedy did not respond to emails asking him about this apparent discrepancy.

The original story about Blair quotes him agreeing that had important research been published in time, it would have affected the IARC analysis. That is also reported in a follow-up Mother Jones story that refers to the earlier Reuters piece. But a hazard assessment might be lowered somewhat and remain substantial. And, in fact, when Blair was asked directly in the same deposition whether his testimony about the unpublished research changed his conclusion about the IARC glyphosate assessment, he said "no." He remained convinced that glyphosate should be classified as a probable carcinogen. Unfortunately, this important statement was not included in either the Reuters or Mother Jones articles.

There was also another epidemiological assessment revealed in Blair's testimony, the North American Pooled Project, that apparently reinforces the possibility of glyphosate causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The IARC also did not see it because it had likewise not yet been published. This was also not mentioned in either the Reuters or the Mother Jones stories.

More recently, additional questions have been raised about media portrayals of another IARC scientist concerning glyphosate. An article in Politico by Simon Marks quotes snippets from the deposition of Dr. Jameson of IARC, which express apparent concern that he had not seen a large review of glyphosate toxicology early enough. And that had he been able to evaluate that research thoroughly, it might have changed the IARC assessment.

But the Politico article does not mention that Dr. Jameson later performed a detailed reassessment of glyphosate that included this controversial research. In that report, Dr. Jameson confirmed the IARC assessment that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. In a later, September 2017 deposition, Dr. Jameson reportedly complained, "I just wanted to express my displeasure with the way my testimony was given to the press and their misrepresentation, so stop with the fake news."

While the debate about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate is not over, that is exactly the point. Science controversy cannot be settled by a film director's fiat. Any reasonable discussion about the science of GMOs and the products they were designed to use must include such debate. "Food Evolution" fails at presenting such a central issue about the safety of the most common genetically engineered (GE) crops. And given that "Food Evolution" focuses on food safety-improperly in the broad context of the film as a discussion of the need for GE for food security, or other harm from GMOs-it is even more egregious that the issue of glyphosate toxicity is so biased.

Had the biases, exclusions, and errors discussed above been the extent of the problems with "Food Evolution," the label of propaganda would be applicable. But there is more, including its treatment of organic food, herbicide-resistant weeds, and harm from the dominant current GMOs. Those topics will be analyzed in part two of this series.

Join the Conversation:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Food Evolution" Documentary Supports GMOs, but Not Science - Food Tank

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, is an Independent Consultant with Strategic Trainings and Expansion. This article is the first of a two-part series analyzing the documentary "Food Evolution." Recently, a documentary was released which claimed to bring science to the polarized genetically modified organism (GMO) debate, settle the relevant issues of the safety, and prove the value of these technologies for global food security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a national non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy organization working to protect human health and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Biotechnology Policy [The following policies on Biotechnology have been adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors:]

GENETIC ENGINEERING is a rapidly evolving technology involving molecular modifications of the genetic code of living organisms. Sierra Club's policy, herein updated, is concerned with the applications of this technology in farm crops, fish and non-human animals, trees and all wilderness species. Our policy is not intended to be applied to biomedical applications. Genes taken from one species and inserted into the genome of another, such as bacterial genes inserted into corn or soy, are one application. The resultant crop can be called a genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE'd) or, as in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a living modified organism (LMO).

Genes which have been transferred like this are called transgenes. When genes from different sources within the same species are moved, the process is called cisgenesis rather than transgenesis. In either case, the aim is to make heritable changes which can be passed down to succeeding generations. In both cases, there are risks, one of which is that if such organisms are introduced outside of laboratory confinement the ways in which they spread and their ultimate health and ecological effects may be impossible to predict and the genetically engineered organisms may be impossible to recall. More recently, it has become possible to directly edit genes and regulatory elements at the molecular level (for example, zinc finger technology and CRISPR-Cas9 techniques) which present new risks. Indeed, the annual worldwide threat assessment report of the U.S. intelligence community (2016) added gene editing to its list of "weapons of mass destruction."

For purposes of this policy we define genetic engineering to include all direct molecular manipulation of the genetic structure of organisms or viruses.

A genetically engineered organism (GEO or GMO or LMO) is a single-celled or multicellular organism, the genetic structure of which has been altered by genetic engineering.

The accidental outflow of transgenes or altered genes from a genetically engineered organism to a natural organism, for example by pollen transfer or fish spawning, results in the production of an organism which, although it has not intentionally been genetically engineered, must be classified as a genetically engineered organism.

GENERAL STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE (further expanded in the guidelines, to follow)

The Sierra Club urges full public disclosure, discussion and evaluation of the potential hazards, the potential benefits, and policy options for genetic engineering research and the development and use of products from that research. We urge the development of adequate regulatory, legislative, and other controls and that these decisions be based on a reverence for nature and life, as well as socioeconomic equity.

We call for a ban on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved, pending improved regulatory procedures and safety testing. Releases should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determines the long-term environmental and health impacts of each GEO and there is public debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GEO intended for release into the environment.

We urge that where there are safer alternatives to the use of GEOs, these technologies should be given preference. For example, genetic engineering solutions should never be used to divert attention from the solutions to the problem of hunger that carry less biological risk (e.g., better distribution of food, land reform, sustainable soil conservation strategies, promotion of regional sustainability, reduced consumption of animal products, and stabilization of population).

GUIDELINES (1) TESTING OF GEOs.

There are health and environmental risks inherent in the release of GEOs during field testing and/or commercial planting. Government agencies must develop and enforce policies that require stepwise testing, with strict controls to prevent accidental and premature releases. The stepwise testing must include (as appropriate) contained testing in the laboratory and greenhouse. The results of each step must be made publicly available when tests are subject to approval processes. No field testing should be done until all guidelines in this policy are met.

(2) REGULATION OF GEO RELEASES.

Regulation of releases of genetically engineered organisms should ensure that potentially hazardous organisms are not released into the environment without sufficient safeguards and monitoring. Final evaluation should be made on the basis of the effects of genetic modifications, taking into account other factors, particularly the site where the organism will be released. Long-term as well as short-term impacts of GEOs must be evaluated, and a finding of environmental safety made before a release is approved. At a minimum, the evaluation must assess:

(a) the genetically engineered organism's role in the ecosystem (including its food and nutrients, its predators, parasites, and competitors, organisms with which it can exchange genetic material, and environmental limits to its growth);

(b) the impact of its release and potential use on ecosystems and genetic diversity;

(c) the effects of its potential use on sustainable agriculture, resource use, and cultural systems;

(d) the impacts of the organism and its products on human health; and

(e) the impacts of marker genes as well as genes of interest to producers. (Antibiotic resistance marker genes should not be used in GEOs released into the environment.)

All impacts from production to disposal should be assessed, as well as all paths of potential migration, and the scale of the release. Deleterious impacts on workers or on those living near production or release sites should also be considered. An emergency response plan must be in place in case of unforeseen outcomes.

If any government, organization or individual wishes to release, for any purpose, genetically engineered organisms into the environment of a foreign country, they should abide by the standards of the releasing party's home country as well as those of the host country. In the case of conflicting national standards, the standard more protective of the environment and human health should prevail.

Public agencies providing biosafety oversight must notify the public of proposed releases and provide a reasonable and timely opportunity for the public to comment on proposed releases. Notification should include, but not be limited to, the location of release sites. Public comment should be encouraged and receive response. Agencies should ensure public access to all information necessary to evaluate potential hazards even when such needed information otherwise qualifies as confidential business information. In addition, companies and institutions should not be permitted to withhold scientific testing data as trade secrets.

The Sierra Club supports the establishment of a repository for information on GEOs that have been approved for release. Such information must be available to the public.

(3) MONITORING OF GEOs.

Both deliberate and unintentional releases of genetically engineered organisms should be monitored through coordinated efforts of agencies, companies, and academic institutions in order to test predictions about the organisms' behavior, numbers, dispersal and environmental impact. The public should be involved in the design of these monitoring programs. Data from such programs must be made available to the public and widely distributed and publicized.

(4) LABELING AND SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE.

Foods produced from or containing GEOs may contain new substances or have purposeful or inadvertent compositional changes. All foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material must be labeled as such. The federal government should carefully regulate food produced from or containing genetically engineered organisms to ensure safety. The use of the concept of "substantial equivalence" in order to waive the need for both pre- and post-marketing testing and surveillance should be prohibited.

(5) LIABILITY.

Liability issues must be addressed and resolved prior to the release of every GEO. Manufacturers of GEOs should be fully liable for any environmental damage caused by the organisms they genetically engineer. The burden of proof of safety must be on the manufacturing company. At a minimum, these companies must be fully insured and able to reimburse:

(a) farmers whose crops are less saleable because of genetic contamination from GEOs;

(b) farmers using nonviable genetically engineered seeds; and

(c) for any human or animal suffering health dysfunction resulting from consumption of products that contain GEOs, where the conventional counterpart did not cause such health dysfunction.

(6) CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Regulations should require that there be full public disclosure when there is potential conflict of interest with individuals:

(1) serving on biosafety committees;

(2) working for or advising government regulatory or research agencies involved in genetic engineering research or regulatory oversight.

(7) REGULATION OF GEOs/TRADE RULES WITHIN THE USA.

We support the right of states and localities to adopt regulations for genetically engineered organisms more stringent than federal regulations. We support efforts to ensure communication and, where appropriate, to coordinate oversight among federal, state, and local agencies. Federal and international trade policies and rules must not interfere with the right of states and localities to adopt more stringent measures.

(8) REGULATION OF GEOs / INTERNATIONAL TRADE RULES.

All nations should develop and enforce regulations governing experimental release and commercialization of genetically engineered organisms. We oppose any release or agricultural/industrial commercialization of GEOs until appropriate procedures are in place to protect human health, biodiversity, and cultural systems. Trade rules must not be used to override the right of each country to establish regulations based on its own level of risk and based on precautionary action in the absence of scientific certainty.

GEOs may have transboundary impacts and may also move both legally and illegally in international trade. No international trade agreements should infringe upon the rights of governments to apply the Precautionary Principle or to regulate import, export, or trade of genetically engineered species within their borders.

(9) INAPPROPRIATE USE OF GEOs.

We oppose any development or use of biological weapons and agents used for agricultural bioterrorism, including any use of genetic engineering for these purposes.

We oppose the introduction of any GEOs onto public lands or other open spaces that are protected chiefly for their natural characteristics.

We oppose activities that have the potential to adversely affect the viability of biodiversity and food security. Genetically engineered seed meant to enhance monocropping is an example of such an activity. Others include:

(a) Systems which combine the development of herbicide-tolerant crops with reliance on the manufacturer's proprietary herbicides to control competing plant species should not be instituted;

(b) Technologies that encourage corporate control over seeds should not be employed. Genetic restrictive use technology (commonly known as "terminator technology") is an example of such corporate control; and

(c) Policies that encourage further consolidation or monopolistic control of the food production system should be avoided.

(10) PATENTING of GEOs.

All humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms are products of nature.

No individual, institution or corporation should have the ability to claim ownership over species or varieties of living organisms. We oppose the granting of patent claims over organs, cells, genes, proteins, and other living matter whether naturally occurring, genetically engineered, or otherwise modified. The genetic code of humans, animals, plants and microorganisms has evolved over hundreds of millions of years and represents not only our natural world of today but also its past and future. We hold that respect for this natural treasure demands that no government should have power to grant patents or property rights over it. Just as civilized societies have decided that there can be no ownership of human beings (slaves), we believe that there should be no ownership of genetic code, which should continue to be the shared common heritage of all.

Indigenous peoples, their knowledge and resources are a target for the commodification of genetic resources. We recognize these peoples' sovereign rights to self-determination and territorial rights, and support their efforts to protect themselves, their lands and genetic resources from commodification and manipulation.

Patents over life forms are not necessary to conduct scientific and technological research, and, in fact, retard and limit access to benefits which may result from new information, treatments or products.

(11) BIOPROSPECTING.

Our national park system was established to conserve its scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in such a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This mandate protects all genetic resources within our national park system from commodification and manipulation. Accordingly, we oppose any individual, institution or corporation's ability to claim control and ownership over this diversity through the act of bioprospecting and/or through contractual agreements allowing access to such diversity for the purpose of commercial gain. We respect the rights of all peoples and governments to similarly designate and restrict exploitation of their own genetic resources.

Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, May 21, 2000, replaced the policy adopted September 18-19, 1993. Amended on April 21, 2016.

Special Guidelines Concerning Fish and Other Aquatic Life

Sierra Club's Biotechnology Policy, which, among other things, defines genetic engineering and genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), calls for the development of adequate regulatory, legislative and other controls, calls for a reverence for nature, and invokes the Precautionary Principle, is applicable in its entirety to genetically engineered (GE'd) fish, shellfish, and all other GE'd aquatic organisms, in freshwater or salt. The Guidelines relating to agricultural crops are also broadly applicable. The major issue is very similar: the uncontrolled release of GEOs. Thus, the points in the Guidelines about testing and regulation, monitoring, labeling, liability, application of the Precautionary Principle and other topics mentioned in the Guidelines are equally as important for GE'd fish and aquatic organisms, except where the language specifically refers to "farmers," "crops," or "seeds." We embrace the extension of those Guidelines to all aquatic life, whether the GEOs are intended for food, feed, sport, environmental management, artistic statement or pet store trade.

(1) We believe that GE'd fish and aquatic organisms are an even greater hazard to natural stocks and are even more difficult to properly evaluate and to monitor than GE'd crops, and therefore our primary position is to oppose releases of transgenic aquatic organisms out of doors, or where there is any chance of the organisms or their genetic code escaping into the general environment.

(2) Genetically engineered fish intended for fish farming, whether intended as human food or for other uses such as mosquito control, feed for other fish, or pet store trade, can't be adequately contained. Fish in inland ponds are often swept into steams by storms and can be transported by birds. Fish constrained by nets (such as nearshore netpens for salmon and offshore pens for tuna) have a high rate of escape into the wild. The same is true of other aquatic organisms. Eggs, sperm, larval and planktonic forms of GEOs present additional problems making containment impracticable in out-of-doors environments. The possibility that new or altered genes could wreak havoc with natural ecosystems is therefore great, and this type of genetic adulteration of nature may be irreversible once it occurs. It may lead to extinction of species or to the creation of new bioinvasive varieties. Therefore, we oppose the cultivation of any genetically engineered fish or other aquatic organisms outside of laboratory confinement (or equivalent complete confinement during industrial processes).

(3) We are opposed to genetically engineered sport fish, and to "genetic enhancement" of natural populations.

(4) We are opposed to the production of aquatic GEOs for export, even though the laws or regulations of the importing country may not prohibit it, excepting small and rigorously contained shipments intended solely for research. All exports must be made known to the customs authorities of the importing country in advance of shipment.

(5) Notwithstanding our strong belief that all releases should be prohibited at the present time, it is important that good regulatory mechanisms be established which give government the authority to study and to regulate production or release of transgenic fish. The Sierra Club's existing Guidelines apply here.

(6) We are opposed to release of sterile GE'd fish or other aquatic organisms, much as we are opposed to "Terminator" technology in plant crops, because (a) it would deprive small fish farmers of the opportunity to breed their own fish, (b) escaping sterile fish would reduce the breeding efficiency of wild populations, and (c) it would tend to turn the traditional property of the poor and disadvantaged into the intellectual property of the rich and advantaged. We also do not believe that sterility and reproduction are adequately understood in fish. Prediction is further impaired by the ability of some fish to change sex during their life cycle.

(7) The concepts in the paragraphs above, where written with regard to fish, are embraced and extended to include all uses of any transgenic organisms in aquaculture. Unicellular organisms and plants are included.

(8) Definitions and application. For the purposes of these Guidelines covering fish and aquatic life, amphibians and other life forms that are aquatic during part of their life cycle will be considered aquatic. We recognize that there may be difficulties in deciding whether some organisms such as brewer's yeast, a Pseudomonas bacterium, or a mosquito is to be considered aquatic. In such instances, the general principles of precaution, scientific evaluation of ecological and health risks, and ongoing surveillance will apply regardless of whether the GEO is aquatic or not. On a case-by-case basis, some exceptions to our broad policy may become acceptable (such as, possibly, the release of GE'd sterile mosquitoes as a means of malaria control), but that will not mean that these Guidelines are any less relevant to decisionmaking regarding any and all future releases.

Adopted by the Sustainable Planet Strategy Team, February 20, 2001.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biotechnology Policy [The following policies on Biotechnology have been adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors:]GENETIC ENGINEERING is a rapidly evolving technology involving molecular modifications of the genetic code of living organisms. Sierra Club's policy, herein updated, is concerned with the applications of this technology in farm crops, fish and non-human animals, trees and all wilderness species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMOs are created in a lab, by inserting a gene from one organism into another unrelated organism, producing plants and animals that would never occur in nature. No long-term safety studies have been done on humans, but animal studies link the consumption of GMOs to an increase in allergies, kidney and liver disease, ADHD, cancer, infertility, chronic immune disorders and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic Engineering | Organic Consumers Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMO = Genetically Modified Organism GMOs are created in a lab, by inserting a gene from one organism into another unrelated organism, producing plants and animals that would never occur in nature. No long-term safety studies have been done on humans, but animal studies link the consumption of GMOs to an increase in allergies, kidney and liver disease, ADHD, cancer, infertility, chronic immune disorders and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corteva Agriscience is a publicly traded, global pure-play agriculture company that provides farmers around the world with the most complete portfolio in the industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kellie Blair

Kellie Blair, a farmer and agronomist from Dayton, Iowa, spends her time working with numerous agriculture organizations and blogging about family life on the farm. Hear her explain the benefits of GMO crops and the use of biotechnology in farming.

Play Video

Fill up on data-driven food and farming information from resources that know the field. Don't see your question answered here? Contact us and we'll help you find the facts you need.

What are GMOs?

Farmers and gardeners have been creating plant hybrids for as long as they've been growing plants. GMOs are simply more technologically advanced hybrids. ¹

The World Health Organization defines GMOs as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. To create GMOs, scientists select individual genes and transfer them from one organism to another, between related and nonrelated species. ²

The only GMOs commercially available in the U.S. are the following ten crops: soybeans, corn (field and sweet), papaya, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets, summer squash, Arctic apples and Innate potatoes. ³

1. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm352067.htm

2. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

3. https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/what-foods-are-gmo/

What is Biotechnology?

The methodology used to create GMO plants, which results in GMO food crops, is referred to as genetic engineering or biotechnology.

Genetic engineering allows scientists to create new genetic traits, some of which may be new to certain crops. However, the same basic types of traits are often found naturally in plants and allow them to survive and evolve. ¹

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kellie Blair Kellie Blair, a farmer and agronomist from Dayton, Iowa, spends her time working with numerous agriculture organizations and blogging about family life on the farm. Hear her explain the benefits of GMO crops and the use of biotechnology in farming. Play Video Fill up on data-driven food and farming information from resources that know the field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out how Bayer is working to shape agriculture for the benefit of farmers, consumers and our planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To glimpse the scale of current genomic research and the major areas where biotechnology has a significant impact (agriculture, animal, microbial science, entomology and sustainability; medicine and veterinary medicine including therapeutics, diagnostics and pathology; food science; bioprocess technology and environmental science), the University of California is a good starting reference point.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a GMO? Under the Non-GMO Project Standard, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism to which biotechnology has been applied. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Are GMOs safe?