# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically modified organisms are, in a word, contentious. Some see the act of altering a plant's genetics to generate heartier, more productive crops as a necessity to keep up with the world's growing food demands. Others consider it playing God - an act whose true repercussions science is yet to understand.

As the debate continues, GMOs have proliferated across the globe in the 18 years since they were introduced, now representing 12% of the world's total crop area.

Here are 5 things you should know about the state of GMOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Things to Know About the State of GMOs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified organisms are, in a word, contentious. Some see the act of altering a plant's genetics to generate heartier, more productive crops as a necessity to keep up with the world's growing food demands. Others consider it playing God - an act whose true repercussions science is yet to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
There are shorter summaries posted online if you search the title.

# data[].attributes.headline
Links to Several Articles and Video posted by the Oregon Farm Bureau in support of GMOs

# data[].attributes.subject
Links to Several Articles and Video posted by the Oregon Farm Bureau in support of GMOs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[Has some adult language.]

How To Communicate Science So It Makes Sense Great tips for Oregon farmers and ranchers when discussing hot issues like GMOs, pesticides, and antibiotic use for livestock in conversations (in person and online) with family, friends, neighbors, and lawmakers. Good to consider in today's era of much of the public liking individual family farmers, but feeling unsure about agriculture and its methods, marketplace, and modern technology.

The Psychology Of Why So Many People Are Anti-GMO Think of a science denier, and you might picture someone arguing that climate change isn't real or vaccines cause autism. But the biggest chasm between scientists and the public is actually over GMOs: 88% of U.S. scientists say genetically modified foods are safe to eat, and only 37% of Americans agree. Why are we-and much of the rest of the world-resistant to GMOs?

Everyone Calls BS on Chipotle's GMO Move: News outlets including NPR, New York Magazine, Bloomberg, and the LA Times are criticizing Chipotle's move to ban GMO ingredients. May 1, 2015

Bill Gates Discusses GMO Controversy January 21, 2015

Video: GM Food, Cultivating Fear From BBC's Panorama show: A new generation of GM foods is winning over governments and former critics of the technology, and scientists say the crops could help feed people in the developing world. So are those who oppose GM doing more harm than good?

Mythbusting GMOs Article on international use of GMOs and debunking some common myths.

National GM bans scientifically unfounded and legally questionable by Greenbiotech.eu

Find Answers to Questions on Glyphosate - Also check out Michael Greenberg, M.D., MPH, chief of medical toxicology at Drexel University College of Medicine and his recently authored a post about recent claims about glyphosate and cancer.

Answering CBS Reporters' Questions about GMOs Clear answers to "hard-hitting" questions about GMOs from reporters

TEDx talk: How the organic movement became anti-GMO: Jan. 27, 2015 - "I believe the anti-science movement is the biggest threat to global food security today. The voices of science are being drowned out by the voices of fear and paranoia."

Video debunking GMO misinformation by CultOfDusty: **Warning, lots of F-bombs in this video! But Cult of Dusty does a thorough job of addressing some of the most common fears and myths about GMOs and Monsanto.

The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Sh*t: **Warning, this article has some crude language, but is really good at pointing how how the Food Babe (an anti-ag activist) doesn't really know what she's talking about.
Video debunking the "GMO OMG" documentary
Girls Scouts reject attempts by anti-GMO parents to use their kids in fear campaign January 21, 2015

GM sugar beets save Idaho, Oregon growers millions by Capital Press, Jan. 20, 2015

Pro-GMO side 'wins' online debate hosted by NPR by Capital Press, Dec. 4, 2014

The GMO debate: 5 things to stop arguing by Washington Post, Oct. 2014
Neil deGrasse Tyson on GMOs: "Chill out!"
Oregon agriculture officials say they have no say over GMO food approved by federal regulators by Agri-Pulse, July 11, 2014
Excerpt: Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader, " 'a former organic farmer, said 'it's important that we don't pit different agriculture production systems against one another." He said he is worried about the biotechnology debate divides the agricultural community, and he expressed his concerns about state efforts to mandate labeling for foods made with GMOs. 'My biggest worry is that under the guise of trying to inform the consumer we actually misinform the consumer,' Schrader said. 'We run the risk of making labeling an almost irrelevant and moot point. And that would be a shame.' "

American Farm Bureau VP/Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue discusses overcoming obstacles in biotechnology For more than 20 years, biotechnology has helped farmers increase productivity to meet the food demands of a growing population. Although it continues to face consumer criticism, the future of biotechnology looks bright. Barry Bushue, the American Farm Bureau's vice president, said in Tuesday's Newsline that biotechnology is an important tool, which is why Farm Bureau continues to actively engage in the discussion to protect what farmers need to do their jobs.

"If general farm organizations don't protect all types of agriculture and all the tools that are so necessary to continue to feed the United States and the world, you start losing them one by one," Bushue said.

Statement on biotechnology & coexistence by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation

GMOS: An Introduction Comprehensive article on what GMOs are, the history, and overview of the issues surrounding it.
Great graph that lists 10 internationally known, respected organizations, with official quotes, that publicly state that GMOs are a safe, viable means for growing food. The list includes the American Medical Assn., The World Health Organization, the European Commission, the French Academy of Science, the Royal Society of Medicine.
Overview of GMO issue by Portland-based mom, ItsMomSense.com, May 6, 2014

Are GMO foods safe?, TheHealthyMoms.net, May 2014

Stop Worrying About Feeding Your Kids Organic Fruit, via Slate.com, Jan. 2014

Sorry Hipsters, That Organic Kale Is a Genetically Modified Food, SmithsonianMag.com, Sept. 10, 2014

Washington Post Editorial: Genetically modified crops could help improve the lives of millions, June 1, 2014

Anti-GMO push could hurt organic industry, op-ed by Mischa Popoff, June 2, 2014

Five myths about organic food, Washington Post, June 2014 ~ [ OFB Note: Farm Bureau is not "against" organic farming; we believe that one type of farming should not be pitted against another, mistakenly presenting one as "good" and another as "bad." Farmers should be able to decide what type of agriculture works best for their own farms/ranches and customer base.]

Don't Fear the 'Frankenfish': Why Rich Americans Should Drop Their War on Genetically Modified Foods, The Atlantic, March 2013

No, GMOs Won't Harm Your Health, Mother Jones, Feb. 2014

Farm Bureau supports innovation, biotechnology in wheat, statement by AFBF President Bob Stallman, June 2014

Myth: GM farmers drown crops in dangerous glyphosate - Fact: Farmers use eye droppers, June 3, 2014

Calculating the hidden costs of genetically modified food labels, Slate.com, May 2014

Cornell study: State-mandated GMO labels will drive up food prices, May 2014

All I Want for Mother's Day is Non-labeled GMOs, GroundedParents.com, May 2014

Who's afraid of GMOs? Let's serve up science without scare stories and eat without fear, by John Stossel, May 28, 2014
Coalition for Safe Affordable Food website Humanitarian benefits of GM crops
2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable, Forbes.com

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish., Washington Post, April 2014

How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody, by Pamela Ronald, coauthor of Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food and a professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis.

Genetically engineered crops in nearly 12% of fields, USA Today, Feb. 2014

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops, New York Times, Jan. 2014

What exactly are GMOs?, Fooddialogues.com

The Biggest Myth About Organic Farming, RealClearScience.com, June 6, 2014

Pushing back the organic movement, GreenerIdeal.com, July 11, 2014

ISAAA website, International Services for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Offers information on what countries grow GMO crops.
VOTE NO ON 92: Learn why Oregon Farm Bureau opposes Measure 92, mandatory labeling of GMOs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Resources, Information & Articles About GMOs Biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been used successfully and safely -- while being accompanied by rigorous scientific research and scrutiny -- in the United States since the 1990s for certain crops (mostly corn, soybeans, and cotton).

# data[].attributes.body
This is put together by the Oregon Farm Bureau

# data[].attributes.body
case study on the Hawaiian Papaya Ring Spot Virus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How are GMOs Made? The Genetically Modified Hawaiian Papaya Case Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Case Study: Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome

# data[].attributes.subject
Case Study: Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome

# data[].attributes.body
Harvard Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been altered using genetic engineering methods. Although genetic engineering is a common and essential practice in biotechnology, its specific use in crops is controversial. The key steps involved in genetic engineering are identifying a trait of interest, isolating that trait, inserting that trait into a desired organism, and then propagating that organism. Methods for genetic manipulation have rapidly improved over the last century from simple selective breeding, to inserting genes from one organism into another, to more recent methods of directly editing the genome.

-

What qualifies as a GMO?

A common misconception is that any animal or plant considered to be outside the realm of our reference for "natural" is a GMO. Images of abnormally large cows and tomatoes come to mind. However, the scientific community and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use a stricter definition for a GMO: an animal or plant that has been created through genetic engineering [1]. Genetic engineering is a term used to describe biotechnological methods used by scientists to directly manipulate an organism's genome. Under this definition GMOs do not include plants or animals made by selective breeding, or animals modified by being given hormone supplements or antibiotics. In fact, we do not currently eat any meat products considered to be GMOs, although farm animals may be fed a genetically modified crop [2].

The main goal of the majority of genetic engineering performed on food is to increase crop yield and/or to improve the nutrient value in animal feed. No genetically engineered crops on the market in the United States have been modified to be unusually large (Table 1). Pictures of extremely large vegetables used to support the "Franken-food" image of GMOs are probably not GMOs at all; an unusually large vegetable would more likely be created through less controversial methods of selective breeding or nutrient supplements, not genetic engineering.

The process of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering is widely used in biological research. Mouse models are engineered for biomedical studies, bacteria are engineered to produce medications such as insulin, and crops are engineered for agriculture. All of these products of genetic engineering were created using the same basic steps: identifying a trait of interest, isolating that genetic trait, inserting that trait into the genome of a desired organism, and then growing the engineered organism (Figure 1). These steps are explained in detail below, using examples from Monsanto as the details of their technologies are publicly available. Other major companies such as Syngenta, BASF, Dow, Bayer, and Du Pont use similar methods, as outlined in brief on their respective websites [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Step 1: Identify a trait of interest
In order to identify a desirable new trait scientists most often look to nature. Successful discovery of a new genetic trait of interest is often a combination of critical thinking and luck. For example, if researchers are searching for a trait that would allow a crop to survive in a specific environment, they would look for organisms that naturally are able to survive in that specific environment. Or if researchers are aiming to improve the nutritional content of a crop, they would screen a list of plants that they hypothesize produce a nutrient of interest.

An example of a trait currently in GMOs that was identified through this combination of luck and critical thinking is tolerance to the herbicide Roundup (see this article). Monsanto created "Roundup Ready" plants after finding bacteria growing near a Roundup factory that contained a gene that allowed them to survive in the presence of the herbicide [8]. Although it is not on the market in the United States, Syngenta has designed Golden Rice with an increased amount of pro-vitamin A, which the human body may turn into the vitamin A (see this article). Researchers at Syngenta identified the gene sequence that produces pro-vitamin A and compiled a list of plants to screen with that sequence [9]. With a little luck, there was a plant in nature, maize, that contained a gene that would make Golden Rice produce pro-vitamin A at a level that could meet the nutritional needs of vitamin A deficient communities.

Step 2: Isolate the genetic trait of interest
Comparative analysis is used to decode what part of an organism's genetic makeup contains the trait of interest. The genomes of plants with the trait are compared to genomes in the same species without the trait, with the goal of identifying genes present only in the former [8]. The genomes of different species with the same trait may also be compared in order to identify a gene, as was the case while developing Golden Rice [9]. If there is no database of genetic information for comparison, scientists will purposefully delete, or "knock out," parts of the genome of interest until the desired trait is lost, thereby identifying the genes that lead to the trait.

In order to expedite this process, Monsanto has developed and patented a method known as seed chipping [8]. Through this method Monsanto shaves off parts of seeds for high-throughput genetic sequencing while leaving the rest of the seeds viable for planting. This creates a genetic database for plants before they are even grown, where a barcode system is used to match plants to their genotypes. Researchers may then use this database to identify new traits of interest as well as to optimize the desirable traits in a crop by selecting for the best genotypes based on plant phenotypes.

Step 3: Insert the desired genetic trait into a new genome
Altering the genome of plant seeds is difficult due to their rigid structure. Many biotech companies use "gene guns" that shoot metal particles coated with DNA into plant tissue with a .22-caliber charge [8]. Monsanto no longer uses gene guns, but instead takes advantage of bacteria, called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, that naturally invade seeds and alter plants by inserting pieces of their own DNA into a plant's genome.

In biotechnology research it is common to genetically engineer bacteria to produce a desired protein. This is done by using enzymes to cut and paste a DNA strand of interest into a plasmid, which is a small, circular molecule of DNA [10]. Bacteria are then shocked using heat or electricity so that the cells accept the engineered plasmid. By modifying A. tumefaciens, which is easier to modify than plant seeds themselves, researchers may use the bacteria's naturally invasive behavior as a Trojan horse for inserting desirable traits into a crop's genome.

Step 4: Growing the GMO
After a genetic trait has been successfully inserted into an organism's genome, the modified organism must then be able to grow and replicate with its newly engineered genome. First, the genotype of the organisms must be checked so that researchers are only propagating organisms in which the genome was modified correctly.

Biotech companies invest large sums into keeping these plants alive and reproducing once they have been successfully created. The companies use special climate-controlled growth chambers, and biologists often check on the plants by hand to make sure that they are growing as expected [8].

During this process biotech companies will use automated machines, such as Monsanto's GenV planter, in order to track plants and calculate optimal seeding and growth conditions to create the best possible yields. GMO seeds often come with instructions on spacing and nutrition that result from these studies.

Future directions for the creation of GMOs

Humans' ability to modify crops for improved yields and nutrients in a given environment is a keystone of agriculture. The technological advancement from selective breeding to genetic engineering has opened up a large realm of possibilities for the future of our food. As techniques for genetic engineering, such as new RNAi- and nuclease-based technologies that allow for direct modification of the genome (see this article and this article), steadily improve, our ability to create new GMOs will also grow [11]. As our scientific capabilities expand it is essential that we discuss the ethics and ideals surrounding GMOs so that we may effectively and safely use this technology in a way that is acceptable to the public.

Table 1. Summary of the FDA's Inventory of Completed Biotechnology Consultations on Genetically Engineered Foods as of June 30th, 2015. Crops listed in order of relative abundance of genetically engineered crop consultations (corn having the most consultations). This information is available to the public:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=Biocon
Chelsea Powell is a PhD student in the Chemical Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.

References

1. "Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 22 June 2015. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
2. Cossins, Daniel. "Will We Ever Eat Genetically Modified Meat?" BBC. BBC, 9 Mar. 2015. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150309-will-we-ever-eat-gm-meat
3. http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/research-development/rdapproach/Pages/research-areas.aspx
4. https://www.basf.com/en/company/research/our-focus/plant-biotechnology.html
5. http://www.dowagro.com/innovation/
6. http://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Products-and-Innovation/Research-and-Innovation.aspx
7. http://www.dupont.com/industries/agriculture.html
8. Boyle, Rebecca. "How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step." Popular Science. Popular Science, 24 Jan. 2011. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cycle-genetically-modified-seed
9. Paine, Jacqueline A., Catherine A. Shipton, Sunandha Chaggar, Rhian M. Howells, Mike J. Kennedy, Gareth Vernon, Susan Y. Wright, Edward Hinchliffe, Jessica L. Adams, Aron L. Silverstone, and Rachel Drake. "Improving the Nutritional Value of Golden Rice through Increased Pro-vitamin A Content." Nature Biotechnology 23.4 (2005): 482-87. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15793573
10. "Genetic Engineering." BBC. BBC, 2015. Web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zg2bkqt/revision/2
11. Hsu, Patrick D., Eric S. Lander, and Feng Zhang. "Development and Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for Genome Engineering." Cell 157.6 (2014): 1262-278.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414006047
12. "Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties." Biotechnology Consultations on Food from GE Plant Varieties. FDA, 30 June 2015. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=Biocon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Chelsea Powell figures by Anna Maurer Summary: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been altered using genetic engineering methods. Although genetic engineering is a common and essential practice in biotechnology, its specific use in crops is controversial.

# data[].attributes.headline
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of GMOs

# data[].attributes.subject
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of GMOs

# data[].attributes.body
New York Times 10.30.2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Uncertain Harvest

LONDON - The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem - genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world's growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields - food per acre - when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that "there was little evidence" that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe's biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage - 65 percent - and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although American protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained. In the last few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to G.M. foods is a foundation of the Green political movement. Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the United States and elsewhere.

Image

In Rowland, N.C., a worker loads G.M. corn seed into a planting machine on Bo Stone's farm. Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times

Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers' attention. Pesticides are toxic by design - weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany - and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer.

"These chemicals are largely unknown," said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of nearly 17 million I.Q. points among American children 5 years old and under to one class of insecticides. "We do natural experiments on a population," he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, "and wait until it shows up as bad."

The industry is winning on both ends - because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than $100 billion each.

When presented with the findings, Robert T. Fraley, the chief technology officer at Monsanto, said The Times had cherry-picked its data to reflect poorly on the industry. "Every farmer is a smart businessperson, and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don't think it provides a major benefit," he said. "Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously."

Regarding the use of herbicides, in a statement, Monsanto said, "While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage."

Genetically modified crops can sometimes be effective. Monsanto and others often cite the work of Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany, including a meta-analysis of studies that he helped write finding significant yield gains from genetically modified crops. But in an interview and emails, Dr. Qaim said he saw significant effects mostly from insect-resistant varieties in the developing world, particularly in India.

"Currently available G.M. crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe," he said. And regarding herbicide-resistant crops in general: "I don't consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn't live without."

A Vow to Curb Chemicals

First came the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which was supposed to stay fresh longer. The next year it was a small number of bug-resistant russet potatoes. And by 1996, major genetically modified crops were being planted in the United States.

Monsanto, the most prominent champion of these new genetic traits, pitched them as a way to curb the use of its pesticides. "We're certainly not encouraging farmers to use more chemicals," a company executive told The Los Angeles Times in 1994. The next year, in a news release, the company said that its new gene for seeds, named Roundup Ready, "can reduce overall herbicide use."

Originally, the two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides, allowing crops to be sprayed with weedkillers, or resistant to some insects.

Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.

To some, this outcome was predictable. The whole point of engineering bug-resistant plants "was to reduce insecticide use, and it did," said Joseph Kovach, a retired Ohio State University researcher who studied the environmental risks of pesticides. But the goal of herbicide-resistant seeds was to "sell more product," he said - more herbicide.

Farmers with crops overcome by weeds, or a particular pest or disease, can understandably be G.M. evangelists. "It's silly bordering on ridiculous to turn our backs on a technology that has so much to offer," said Duane Grant, the chairman of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a cooperative of more than 750 sugar beet farmers in the Northwest.

He says crops resistant to Roundup, Monsanto's most popular weedkiller, saved his cooperative.

But weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup around the world - creating an opening for the industry to sell more seeds and more pesticides. The latest seeds have been engineered for resistance to two weedkillers, with resistance to as many as five planned. That will also make it easier for farmers battling resistant weeds to spray a widening array of poisons sold by the same companies.

Growing resistance to Roundup is also reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous Vietnam War defoliant. Its potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups.

Another is dicamba. In Louisiana, Monsanto is spending nearly $1 billion to begin production of the chemical there. And even though Monsanto's version is not yet approved for use, the company is already selling seeds that are resistant to it - leading to reports that some farmers are damaging neighbors' crops by illegally spraying older versions of the toxin.

High-Tech Kernels

Two farmers, 4,000 miles apart, recently showed a visitor their corn seeds. The farmers, Bo Stone and Arnaud Rousseau, are sixth-generation tillers of the land. Both use seeds made by DuPont, the giant chemical company that is merging with Dow Chemical.

To the naked eye, the seeds looked identical. Inside, the differences are profound.

In Rowland, N.C., near the South Carolina border, Mr. Stone's seeds brim with genetically modified traits. They contain Roundup Ready, a Monsanto-made trait resistant to Roundup, as well as a gene made by Bayer that makes crops impervious to a second herbicide. A trait called Herculex I was developed by Dow and Pioneer, now part of DuPont, and attacks the guts of insect larvae. So does YieldGard, made by Monsanto.

Another big difference: the price tag. Mr. Rousseau's seeds cost about $85 for a 50,000-seed bag. Mr. Stone spends roughly $153 for the same amount of biotech seeds.

For farmers, doing without genetically modified crops is not a simple choice. Genetic traits are not sold à la carte.

Mr. Stone, 45, has a master's degree in agriculture and listens to Prime Country radio in his Ford pickup. He has a test field where he tries out new seeds, looking for characteristics that he particularly values - like plants that stand well, without support.

"I'm choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on G.M.O. traits" like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years.

That said, Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (though he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers). And Roundup resistance in pigweed has emerged as a problem.

"No G.M. trait for us is a silver bullet," he said.

By contrast, at Mr. Rousseau's farm in Trocy-en-Multien, a village outside Paris, his corn has none of this engineering because the European Union bans most crops like these.

"The door is closed," says Mr. Rousseau, 42, who is vice president of one of France's many agricultural unions. His 840-acre farm was a site of World War I carnage in the Battle of the Marne.

As with Mr. Stone, Mr. Rousseau's yields have been increasing, though they go up and down depending on the year. Farm technology has also been transformative. "My grandfather had horses and cattle for cropping," Mr. Rousseau said. "I've got tractors with motors."

He wants access to the same technologies as his competitors across the Atlantic, and thinks G.M. crops could save time and money.

"Seen from Europe, when you speak with American farmers or Canadian farmers, we've got the feeling that it's easier," Mr. Rousseau said. "Maybe it's not right. I don't know, but it's our feeling."

Feeding the World

With the world's population expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, Monsanto has long held out its products as a way "to help meet the food demands of these added billions," as it said in a 1995 statement. That remains an industry mantra.

"It's absolutely key that we keep innovating," said Kurt Boudonck, who manages Bayer's sprawling North Carolina greenhouses. "With the current production practices, we are not going to be able to feed that amount of people."

But a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the United States and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany.

For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, The Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops.

Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada's favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows.

Stink bugs raised by Bayer for experimental purposes at its research center in Morrisville, N.C. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times

For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade.

Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, "hasn't been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices."

Biotech executives suggested making narrower comparisons. Dr. Fraley of Monsanto highlighted data comparing yield growth in Nebraska and France, while an official at Bayer suggested Ohio and France. These comparisons can be favorable to the industry, while comparing other individual American states can be unfavorable.

Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said that while the industry had long said G.M.O.s would "save the world," they still "haven't found the mythical yield gene."

Few New Markets

Battered by falling crop prices and consumer resistance that has made it hard to win over new markets, the agrochemical industry has been swept by buyouts. Bayer recently announced a deal to acquire Monsanto. And the state-owned China National Chemical Corporation has received American regulatory approval to acquire Syngenta, though Syngenta later warned the takeover could be delayed by scrutiny from European authorities.

The deals are aimed at creating giants even more adept at selling both seeds and chemicals. Already, a new generation of seeds is coming to market or in development. And they have grand titles. There is the Bayer Balance GT Soybean Performance System. Monsanto's Genuity SmartStax RIB Complete corn. Dow's PhytoGen with Enlist and WideStrike 3 Insect Protection.

In industry jargon, they are "stacked" with many different genetically modified traits. And there are more to come. Monsanto has said that the corn seed of 2025 will have 14 traits and allow farmers to spray five different kinds of herbicide.

Newer genetically modified crops claim to do many things, such as protecting against crop diseases and making food more nutritious. Some may be effective, some not. To the industry, shifting crucial crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed almost entirely to genetically modified varieties in many parts of the world fulfills a genuine need. To critics, it is a marketing opportunity.

"G.M.O. acceptance is exceptionally low in Europe," said Liam Condon, the head of Bayer's crop science division, in an interview the day the Monsanto deal was announced. He added: "But there are many geographies around the world where the need is much higher and where G.M.O. is accepted. We will go where the market and the customers demand our technology."

Correction:

A chart on Sunday with the continuation of an article about the unmet promises of genetically modified crops misstated the mode of action of Herculex I, a genetic trait developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer. It breaks down the gut wall of insect larvae; it does not create a bacterium that does so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uncertain Harvest LONDON - The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat. But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem - genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

# data[].attributes.body
Time Magazine 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the GMOs you may already be eating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Moon & Discovered the Earth Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of GMOs with Bill Nye & Chuck Nice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now that Bill Nye has famously changed his opinion about GMOs, a fan thinks Bill is the perfect person to discuss their pros and cons. Watch Bill Nye the Science Guy play devil's advocate and outline the beneficial and non-beneficial aspects of using GMOs.

# data[].attributes.body
Slate 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here's what I've learned. First, it's true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It's full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They're counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movement-that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food-is a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.

The deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs.

Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isn't a thing. It's a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If you're concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won't tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.

If you're like me, you don't really want to wade into this issue. It's too big, technical, and confusing. But come with me, just this once. I want to take you backstage, behind those blanket assurances about the safety of genetic engineering. I want to take you down into the details of four GMO fights, because that's where you'll find truth. You'll come to the last curtain, the one that hides the reality of the anti-GMO movement. And you'll see what's behind it.

Papaya image from iStock. Photo illustration by Holly Allen.

Today the GE papaya is a triumph. It saved the industry. But it's also a cautionary tale. The papaya, having defeated the virus, barely survived a campaign to purge GE crops from Hawaii. The story of that campaign teaches a hard lesson: No matter how long a GMO is eaten without harming anyone, and no matter how many studies are done to demonstrate its safety, there will always be skeptics who warn of unknown risks.

long history of mammalian consumption of the entire plant virus particle in foods, without causing any deleterious human health effects. Virus-infected plants currently are and have always been a part of both the human and domestic animal food supply and there have been no findings which indicate that plant viruses are toxic to humans and other vertebrates. Further, plant viruses are unable to replicate in mammals or other vertebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of human infection.

Greenpeace vandals tore up a GE papaya orchard in Thailand, calling the plant a "time bomb."

Some of these early alarms were disconcerting. But scientifically, they made no sense. Start with the distinction between "nature" and "genetic pollution." Nature had invented the ringspot virus. Millions of people had eaten it without any reports of harm. And breeders had been tinkering with nature for millennia.

From 2006 to 2010, USDA scientists, prodded by Japanese regulators, subjected the papaya to several additional studies. They verified that its new protein had no genetic sequence in common with any known allergen, using the common standard of eight consecutive amino acids rather than six. They demonstrated that the protein, unlike allergens, broke down in seconds in gastric fluid. They found that conventional virus-infected papayas, which people had been eating all along, had eight times as much viral protein as the GE papaya. In May 2009, after a decade of scrutiny, Japan's Food Safety Commission approved the GE papaya. Two years later, after resolving environmental questions, Japan opened its market to the fruit.

Chinese researchers performed additional tests. For four weeks they fed GE papayas to a group of rats. Meanwhile, they fed conventional papayas to another group of rats. The study found no resulting differences between the rats. It confirmed that coat protein fragments dissolved quickly in gastric fluid and left no detectable traces in organs.

By this point the GE papaya had been investigated and eaten for 15 years. GMO skeptics had two choices. They could acknowledge that their nightmares hadn't come true. Or they could reject the evidence and cling to their faith in a GMO apocalypse.

To support his testimony, Smith cited a March 2013 paper about regulation of GE crops. He said the paper "showed that the evaluation of this technology is sorely inadequate to protect against environmental problems and human health problems. And the papaya was one example cited in that study." But the paper made no claim about papayas. It simply listed them in a table of GE crops, alongside a theoretical critique of the technology.

To explain why scientific organizations and regulatory agencies had declared GE foods safe, the anti-GMO witnesses offered conspiracy theories. They said the Food and Drug Administration had been captured by Monsanto. So had the American Association for the Advancement of Science. When the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter Amy Harmon detailed the safety evidence behind the GE papaya, incredulous council members dismissed her article as a "skewed" account by "the political powers that be."

In the end, the papaya survived. Ford's bill died. Wille's bill was signed into law but was tied up in court. The new law makes an exception for papayas. But GMO labels don't. They don't tell you that the fruit you're looking at in your grocery store was engineered to need fewer pesticides, not more. They don't tell you about all the research that went into checking its safety. They don't tell you that people have been eating it with no ill effects for more than 15 years. They don't tell you that when you buy it, your money goes to Hawaiian farmers, not to Monsanto.

Some people, to this day, believe GE papayas are dangerous. They want more studies. They'll always want more studies. They call themselves skeptics. But when you cling to an unsubstantiated belief, even after two decades of research and experience, that's not skepticism. It's dogma.

Corn image from Fuse. Photo illustration by Holly Allen.

In 1901 a Japanese biologist discovered that a strain of bacteria was killing his country's silkworms. Scientists gave the bacteria a name: Bacillus thuringiensis. It turned out to be handy for protecting crops from insects. Farmers and environmentalists loved it. It was natural, effective, and harmless to vertebrates.

In the mid-1980s, Belgian researchers found a better way to produce the insecticide. They put a gene from the bacteria into tobacco plants. When bugs tried to eat the plants, they died. Now farmers wouldn't need the bacteria. Plants that had the new gene, known as Bt, could produce the insecticidal protein on their own.

Environmentalists flipped. What upset them wasn't the insecticide but the genetic engineering. Thus began the strange backlash against Bt crops. A protein that everyone had previously agreed was innocuous suddenly became a menace. To many critics of biotechnology, the long history of safe Bt use was irrelevant. What mattered was that Bt was now a GMO. And GMOs were evil.

The coalition claimed to speak for environmental caution. But its caution was curiously selective. Thirty of the 34 farmers who were identified in the lawsuit as victims and plaintiffs affirmed that they sprayed Bt on their own crops. Fourteen of the 16 farming organizations listed as plaintiffs said they had members who used Bt spray. One plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, was a "supplier of organic fertilizers and pest controls" whose business "consists of selling foliar Bt products to conventional apple growers." Another was "one of the largest suppliers of beneficial insects and natural organisms designed to control agricultural pests," including "several Bt products."

Greenpeace and its partners weren't fighting the Bt industry. They were protecting it. They were trying to convince the public that the Bt protein was dangerous when produced by plants but perfectly safe when produced by bacteria and sprayed by farmers.

In fact, the 2006 petition suggested that the low concentration of Bt in Indian cotton was allowing insects to flourish, leading to crop losses, and causing farmers to fall into debt and kill themselves. The suicide allegation was just another anti-GMO fiction. But it allowed Greenpeace to claim that the Bt in transgenic crops was killing people in two ways: by being more persistent and potent than the Bt in sprays, and by being less persistent and potent than the Bt in sprays.

But that isn't what's strange. What's strange is that so much of the ostensible evidence against Bt crops is, at best, evidence against Bt sprays.

You can think you're eating less Bt, when in fact you're eating more.

Greenpeace says you needn't worry, because " Bt proteins from natural Bt sprays degrade" within two weeks. But this is a false assurance, because farmers compensate for the degradation by reapplying the spray. A typical brochure recommends reapplication " every 5-7 days." That's plenty of time to get the toxin to your mouth, since the product literature tells growers that " ripe fruit can be picked and eaten the same day that it is sprayed." In YouTube videos, organic farmers deliver the same instructions: You should spray your vegetables with Bt every four days, coating each surface, and you can eat the food right after you spray it.

Nobody monitors how much Bt is applied worldwide. Last fall the Wall Street Journal estimated that annual sales of biopesticides were roughly $2 billion. Bt has been said to account for 57 percent to 90 percent of that market. In 2001, Bt was reportedly applied in the U.S. to more than 40 percent of tomatoes and 60 percent of brassica crops, which include broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage. Since then, biopesticide sales have risen substantially. In Europe the annual growth rate since 2000 has been nearly 17 percent. Every market analysis predicts that biopesticides will grow at a much faster rate than the overall insecticide market, in part because governments are promoting them. The Journal projects that by 2020, 10 percent of global pesticide sales will be Bt and other biological formulas.

Anti-GMO zealots refuse to face the truth about Bt. Two years ago the Organic Consumers Association and its allied website GreenMedInfo published the headline " New Study Links GMO Food to Leukemia." Today that headline remains uncorrected, even though the study was done with Bt spore crystals, which are components of Bt spray, not Bt crops. (The study is a mess. Most of what was fed to the test animals wasn't Bt toxin, and the write-up, for undisclosed reasons, was withdrawn from an established journal and published instead in a journal that had never before existed.) Meanwhile, last year, Greenpeace published a catalog of "exemplary" agriculture, in which it celebrated a Spanish farm where " the use of Bacillus thuringiensis is being expanded to a greater cultivated surface area." Both organizations encourage you to buy organic, neglecting to mention the dozens of Bt insecticides approved for use in organic agriculture.

GMO labels won't clear this up. They won't tell you whether there's Bt in your food. They'll only give you the illusion that you've escaped it. That's one lesson of the Non-GMO Project, whose voluntary labels purport to give you an " informed choice " about what's in your food. Earlier this year, interns Natania Levy and Greer Prettyman contacted the manufacturers of 15 corn products bearing the Non-GMO Project label. They asked each company whether its product included any ingredients sprayed with biopesticides. Five companies didn't reply. Two told us, falsely, that their organic certification meant they didn't use pesticides or anything that could be harmful. One sent us weasel words and repeated them when we pressed for a clearer answer. Another told us it adhered to legal limits. Three confessed that they didn't know. None of the manufacturers could give us a clear assurance that its product hadn't been exposed to Bt.

That's the fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement. It only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement's fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for-environmental protection, public health, community agriculture-are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that's wrong with the world. That's the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won't fit on a label.

Rice image from iStock. Photo illustration by Holly Allen.

Right now, across the world, a quarter of a billion preschool-age children are suffering from vitamin A deficiency. Every year, 250,000 to 500,000 of these kids go blind. Within a year, half of the blinded children will die. Much of the affliction is in Southeast Asia, where people rely on rice for their nutrition. Rice doesn't have enough beta carotene-the compound that, when digested, produces vitamin A.

Twenty-five years ago, a team of scientists, led by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, set out to solve this problem. Their plan was to engineer a new kind of rice that would make beta carotene.

The idea sounded crazy. But to Potrykus it made more sense than what some governments were already doing: giving each person two high-dose vitamin A pills a year. Wouldn't it be smarter to embed beta carotene in the region's staple crop? That way, people could grow the nutrient and eat it every day, instead of relying on occasional handouts. This was a sustainable solution. It would use biotechnology to prevent suffering, disability, and death.

Greenpeace was right about Golden Rice. At the time, the rice didn't provide enough beta carotene to cure vitamin A deficiency. But neither did the alternatives. Gordon Conway, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which was funding the project, explained some of the difficulties in a 2001 letter to Greenpeace:

Complete balanced diets are the best solution, but the poorer families are, the less likely it is that their children will receive a balanced diet and the more likely they will be dependent on cheap food staples such as rice. This is particularly true in the dry seasons when fruits and vegetables are in short supply and expensive.

Conway echoed the skepticism of UNICEF nutritionists, who doubted that plants native to the afflicted countries could deliver enough digestible beta carotene. To Potrykus, the notion of home gardens for everyone- Let them eat carrot cake-reeked of Western ignorance. " There are hundreds of millions of landless poor," Potrykus pointed out. "They don't have a house to lean the fruit tree against."

Potrykus and Conway wanted to try everything to alleviate vitamin A deficiency: diversification, fortification, supplementation, and Golden Rice. But the anti-GMO groups refused. They called Golden Rice a " Trojan horse" for genetic engineering. They doubled down on their double standards. They claimed that people in the afflicted countries wouldn't eat yellow rice, yet somehow could be taught to grow unfamiliar vegetables. They portrayed Golden Rice as a financial scheme, but then-after Potrykus made clear that it would be given to poor farmers for free-objected that free distribution would lead to genetic contamination of local crops. Some anti-GMO groups said the rice should be abandoned because it was tied up in 70 patents. Others said the claim of 70 patents was a fiction devised by the project's leaders to justify their collaboration with AstraZeneca, a global corporation.

ISIS critically reviewed golden rice in 2000. Among the observations was that the rice produced too little beta-carotene to relieve the existing dietary deficiency. Since then, golden rice strains have been improved, but still fall short of relieving dietary deficiency. On the other hand, increasing the level of beta-carotene may cause vitamin A overdose to those [whose] diets provide adequate amounts of the vitamin. In fact, both vitamin A deficiency and supplementation may cause birth defects.

To support the new alarmism, David Schubert, an anti-GMO activist and neurobiologist at the Salk Institute, drafted a paper on the ostensible perils of boosting vitamin A. In 2008 he got it published in the Journal of Medicinal Food. In the article he noted that beta carotene and dozens of related compounds, known as carotenoids, could produce other compounds, called retinoids, which included vitamin A. He declared that all retinoids " are likely to be teratogenic "-prone to causing birth defects-and, therefore, "extensive safety testing should be required before the introduction of golden rice."

David Schubert gave opponents of Golden Rice what they needed: the illusion of scientific support.

Schubert systematically distorted the evidence. To suggest that Golden Rice might be toxic, he cited a study that had been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1994. Schubert said the study found that "smokers who supplemented their diet with beta-carotene had an increased risk of lung cancer." He neglected to mention that the daily beta carotene dose administered in the study was the equivalent of roughly 10 to 20 bowls of Golden Rice. He also failed to quote the rest of the paper, which emphasized that in general, beta carotene was actually associated with a lower risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, he claimed that a 2004 report by the National Research Council said genetic engineering had "a higher probability of producing unanticipated changes than some genetic modification methods." In reality, the NRC report said genetic engineering

has a higher probability of producing unanticipated changes than some genetic modification methods, such as narrow crosses, and a lower probability than others, such as radiation mutagenesis. Therefore, the nature of the compositional change merits greater consideration than the method used to achieve the change.

By omitting the second half of the sentence-"and a lower probability than others"-Schubert made the NRC report appear to raise alarms about GMOs, when in fact the report had explained why alarmism about GMOs was wrongheaded.

Schubert gave opponents of Golden Rice what they needed: the illusion of scientific support. Every anti-GMO lobby cited his paper. The movement's new position, as expressed by Ban GM Food, was that "Golden Rice is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, and studies show that some retinoids derived from beta carotene are toxic and cause birth defects."

Our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals, and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects.

In these circumstances the use of human subjects (including children who are already suffering illness as a result of Vitamin A deficiency) for GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable.

For all the scare talk about beta carotene, Schubert and his colleagues never mentioned the kids who were given beta carotene capsules in the studies. Nor did Greenpeace. Their sole concern was the rice.

Supporters of Golden Rice were baffled. In a letter to the Daily Mail, six scientists wrote, "The experiments were no more dangerous than feeding the children a small carrot since the levels of beta-carotene and related compounds in Golden Rice are similar." But anti-GMO groups were determined to discredit the studies. They discovered that although the consent forms given to the children's parents said Golden Rice " makes beta carotene," the forms didn't specify that this had been achieved through gene transfer.

Eventually, Tufts commissioned three reviews of the clinical trials. Two were internal; the third was external. The findings, released in 2013, confirmed that the reviews had "identified concerns" about "inadequate explanation of the genetically-modified nature of Golden Rice." But the more important verdict was that "the study data were validated and no health or safety concerns were identified." The university explained:

These multiple reviews found no concerns related to the integrity of the study data, the accuracy of the research results or the safety of the research subjects. In fact, the study indicated that a single serving of the test product, Golden Rice, could provide greater than 50 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A in these children, which could significantly improve health outcomes if adopted as a dietary regimen.

It would not be a surprise if additional unexpected changes in the plant occurred, posing new risks to the environment or human health. ... However, it is virtually impossible to look for unexpected effects-by definition, one cannot know what these effects might be, or where to look for them!

There are other criticisms of GMOs, and one of them is worth your attention.

Cotton image from iStock. Photo illustration by Holly Allen.

Up to this point, we've been focusing on health concerns about GMOs. The stories of papaya, Bt, and Golden Rice demonstrate, in several ways, that these concerns are unfounded. One thing we've learned is that fear of GMOs is unfalsifiable. Hundreds of studies have been done, and tons of GE food have been eaten. No amount of evidence will convince the doomsayers that GMOs are safe. You can't live your life clinging to such unappeasable fear. Let it go.

A third lesson is that GMO segregation, in the form of labels or GMO-free restaurants, is misguided. GMO labels don't clarify what's in your food. They don't address the underlying ingredients-pesticides, toxins, proteins-that supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that's perfectly safe, and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same disparaged ingredients.

The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free shopping aren't informing you or protecting you. They're using you. They tell food manufacturers, grocery stores, and restaurants to segregate GMOs, and ultimately not to sell them, because people like you won't buy them. They tell politicians and regulators to label and restrict GMOs because people like you don't trust the technology. They use your anxiety to justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify your anxiety. Keeping you scared is the key to their political and business strategy. And companies like Chipotle, with their non-GMO marketing campaigns, are playing along.

But safety isn't the only concern that's been raised about GMOs. There are other criticisms, and one of them is worth your attention. It addresses the world's most common agricultural application of genetic engineering: herbicide tolerance.

Two factors seem to account for the herbicide increase. One is direct: If your crops are engineered to withstand Roundup, you can spray it profusely without killing them. The other factor is indirect: When every farmer sprays Roundup, weeds adapt to a Roundup-saturated world. They evolve to survive. To kill these herbicide-resistant strains, farmers spray more weedkillers. It's an arms race.

Chipotle complains that GMOs "produce pesticides" and "create herbicide resistant super-weeds." The company says Benbrook's study showed that " pesticide and herbicide use increased by more than 400 million pounds as a result of GMO cultivation." (Chipotle, unlike Benbrook and other experts, uses the term pesticide to mean insecticide.) But this is misleading in two ways. First, by pooling the data, Chipotle has hidden half of what Benbrook found: that Bt crops reduced insecticide use and thereby, in terms of their contribution to the bottom line, reduced the combined use of pest-killing chemicals. And second, the problem that's driving the herbicide arms race isn't genetic engineering. It's monoculture.

Chipotle illustrates the folly of renouncing GMOs in the name of herbicide control. According to its new policy, "All corn-based ingredients in Chipotle's food that formerly may have been genetically modified have been removed or replaced with non-GMO versions, while all soy-derived ingredients that may have been genetically modified were replaced with alternatives, such as rice bran oil and sunflower oil."

That's just one example of how tricky it is to assess the effects of swearing off GMOs. Roundup isn't the only herbicide, genetic engineering isn't the only technology that creates herbicide tolerance, and your health (which is no more likely to be affected by a given herbicide in GE food than in non-GE food) is just one of many factors to consider. To judge the environmental wisdom of switching from a GMO to a non-GMO product, you'd have to know which pesticides each product involves and how those pesticides affect species that live where the crops are grown. None of that is on the label.

The more you learn about herbicide resistance, the more you come to understand how complicated the truth about GMOs is. First you discover that they aren't evil. Then you learn that they aren't perfectly innocent. Then you realize that nothing is perfectly innocent. Pesticide vs. pesticide, technology vs. technology, risk vs. risk-it's all relative. The best you can do is measure each practice against the alternatives. The least you can do is look past a three-letter label.

Twenty years after the debut of genetically engineered food, it's a travesty that the technology's commercial applications are still so focused on old-fashioned weedkillers. Greenpeace and Chipotle think the logical response to this travesty is to purge GMOs. They're exactly wrong. The relentless efforts of Luddites to block testing, regulatory approval, and commercial development of GMOs are major reasons why more advanced GE products, such as Golden Rice, are still unavailable. The best way to break the herbicide industry's grip on genetic engineering is to support the technology and push it forward, by telling policymakers, food manufacturers, and seed companies that you want better GMOs.

The USDA's catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile options. The list includes drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. A recent global inventory by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects in the pipeline: virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. Skim the news, and you'll find scientists at work on more ambitious ideas: high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish.

That's what genetic engineering can do for health and for our planet. The reason it hasn't is that we've been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public. The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone-European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors-that we're ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes. We want our GMOs. Now, show us what you can do.
Thanks to Slate interns Lydia Bailey, Jareema Hylton, Natania Levy, and Greer Prettyman for their help with this project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
straight talk about genetic modification

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Misleading War on GMOs: The Food Is Safe. The Rhetoric Is Dangerous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here's what I've learned. First, it's true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It's full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Companies be Required to Label GM Foods?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Companies be Required to Label GM Foods?

# data[].attributes.body
Wall Street Journal 2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the biggest arguments in the food world these days involves products that have been genetically modified.

Consumer advocates have been pushing for rules requiring companies to label foods that contain ingredients that have been modified for any number of purposes, such as making them resistant to herbicides. Recently, voters in Oregon and Colorado voted down measures to require labeling. Other states, though, have approved labeling, and the Food and Drug Administration's website says it has received petitions to mandate...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Companies Be Required to Label Genetically Modified Foods?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the biggest arguments in the food world these days involves products that have been genetically modified. Consumer advocates have been pushing for rules requiring companies to label foods that contain ingredients that have been modified for any number of purposes, such as making them resistant to herbicides.

# data[].attributes.body
HuffintonPost 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If the old adage is true and you are what you eat, would you want to be a genetically mutated ear of corn?

Although that paints a pretty terrifying picture, the ethics behind Genetically Modified Organisms (better known as GMOs) are more complicated than one might think. Some studies show that these products are safe to eat and can actually cut down on the use of environmentally-harmful pesticides, while another group of scientists and activists believe that we don't know enough about GMOs to call them safe for people OR the environment.

Regardless of what stance you take on GMOs, many people can agree on one thing: Consumers should be given a choice whether or not they want to eat genetically modified foods. Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of labeling laws, very few Americans currently have that right.

On November 5, Washington state residents will vote on a new GMO labeling law. Named I-522, this initiative could be a historic development in the progress of GMO transparency. However, some roadblocks have the potential to derail the law.

To find out how GMOs and GMO labeling could affect you, check out the infographic below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
INFOGRAPHIC: How Could A GMO Bill Affect You?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the old adage is true and you are what you eat, would you want to be a genetically mutated ear of corn? Although that paints a pretty terrifying picture, the ethics behind Genetically Modified Organisms (better known as GMOs) are more complicated than one might think.

# data[].attributes.body
Comparison of US and European crop production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
G.M.O.s Were Supposed to Increase Crop Yields

Canada and Western Europe grow different varieties of rapeseed (canola), but Canadian farmers have adopted genetically modified seed, while European farmers have not. Still, the long-term yield trend for both areas is up.

The New York Times|Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | Note: Western Europe is France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Austria.

G.M.O.s Were Supposed to Lessen Pesticide Use

Manufacturers also said that genetically modified crops would reduce the need for pesticides. In France, where G.M.O.s are not permitted, pesticide use has significantly declined.

The New York Times|Source: Union of Industries of Plant Protection (France)

*One hectogram per hectare equals 100 grams (3.5 ounces) per 10,000 square meters (2.5 acres.)

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Broken Promises of Genetically Modified Crops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
G.M.O.s Were Supposed to Increase Crop Yields Canada and Western Europe grow different varieties of rapeseed (canola), but Canadian farmers have adopted genetically modified seed, while European farmers have not. Still, the long-term yield trend for both areas is up.