Are GMOs Actually Bad For You?

Summary

SciShow's Hank Green addresses misconceptions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), clarifying that GMOs are not intrinsically harmful and have been consumed safely for decades. He explains the necessity of genetic engineering for facing global challenges, such as feeding a growing population and adapting to climate change. Green also discusses the process of creating GMOs, from gene transfer techniques to the economic and ecological implications of their widespread use, emphasizing the importance of continued research and responsible application.

Takeaways

• 🧬 Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not intrinsically bad and have been consumed safely for decades.
• 🌱 GMOs are a tool that can be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes, necessitating careful study, control, and understanding.
• 🇺🇸 In the United States, GMOs are prevalent, with a significant percentage of crops like sugar beets, corn, and soybeans being genetically modified.
• 🐟 Genetic engineering extends beyond plants, with examples like the FDA-reviewed genetically engineered Atlantic salmon.
• 🌾 GMOs are developed to address challenges like world population growth and climate change, potentially increasing crop yields and reducing reliance on harmful substances.
• 🥦 Traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering both emphasize desirable traits, but genetic engineering is more precise.
• 🔬 The process of creating GMOs involves techniques like gene guns and Agrobacterium, which are used to introduce new genes into plant cells.
• 🌱 The term 'genetically modified organism' can be misleading, as humans have been modifying organisms through artificial selection since the invention of agriculture.
• 🛡️ 'Roundup-ready' crops are engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate, allowing farmers to control weeds without harming their crops.
• 📈 The development and approval process for GMOs is lengthy and costly, which can lead to monopolization by a few large companies.
• 🌱 Despite controversies and vocal opposition, there is no scientific evidence linking GMOs to adverse health effects in humans.

Q & A

What is the primary stance of SciShow regarding GMOs as presented in the script?

SciShow's primary stance is that GMOs are not intrinsically bad and are not harmful to human health, as they have been consumed for decades without ill effects.

Why does the script suggest that genetic engineering is necessary for human survival on Earth?

The script suggests that genetic engineering is necessary because it can help address significant challenges such as a growing population and a less stable climate, similar to how nitrogen fixing in the past allowed for more fertile fields and saved millions from starvation.

What is the difference between genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered organisms?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a broader term that includes any organism that has had its genetic material altered, including through traditional breeding methods. Genetically engineered organisms, also known as transgenic organisms, specifically refer to organisms that have had genes from one species extracted and fused into the genome of another species.

What is an example of a genetically modified crop that was developed for human benefit mentioned in the script?

An example mentioned in the script is a strain of rice developed to contain enough vitamin A to help prevent blindness in children caused by vitamin A deficiency.

How have traditional breeding methods and genetic engineering differed in their approach to modifying organisms?

Traditional breeding methods have relied on artificial selection to emphasize desirable traits in organisms over many generations. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, involves the precise manipulation of an organism's genome, often by transferring specific genes from one species to another.

What is the 'Flavr Savr Tomato' and why was it significant?

The 'Flavr Savr Tomato' was the first genetically engineered crop sold to consumers. It was altered to have a longer shelf life due to a slower ripening process. Its significance lies in being the first of its kind, although it did not last long in the market due to taste issues and genetic alteration concerns.

What is the primary reason for creating 'Roundup-ready crops'?

The primary reason for creating 'Roundup-ready crops' is to engineer crops that are resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the herbicide over their entire crop without killing the crops, thus effectively controlling weeds.

How are genes typically transferred from one species to another in genetic engineering?

Genes can be transferred using methods such as gene guns, which blast DNA into plant cells, or using Agrobacterium, a bacterium that naturally transfers DNA to plant cells and can be used to infuse plant cells with new genetic material.

What is the process called 'backcross breeding' and why is it used?

Backcross breeding is the process of repeatedly crossing a genetically modified plant with traditional strains of the crop to introduce the new genetic material into existing varieties. It is used to create new transgenic crop varieties that can be grown and sold commercially.

What are some of the concerns raised in the script about the economic and cultural implications of GMOs?

The script raises concerns about the concentration of power over the food supply in the hands of a few large companies due to the high cost of producing GMOs and the restriction of patents. It also touches on the potential for farmers to lose the ability to save seeds for future planting due to patent laws and the risk of contamination from patented GMO strains.

How does the script address the issue of potential ecological effects from genetically engineered traits in crops?

The script acknowledges that there are potential ecological effects, such as the impact on non-target insects like bees and butterflies, and emphasizes the need to ensure that engineered traits like insect resistance do not harm beneficial species.

What was the outcome of the controversial study mentioned in the script that claimed GMOs caused an increase in cancer in rats?

The study was discredited due to issues such as cherry-picked data, lack of dose-response, small sample groups, and the use of a rat strain that is naturally prone to developing cancer, leading to the conclusion that there is no implication that genetically modified food poses a danger to human health.

Outlines

00:00

🌱 Clarifying Misconceptions About GMOs

Hank Green from SciShow addresses past misinformation and clarifies the studio's stance on genetic engineering. He emphasizes that GMOs are not intrinsically bad for health, as evidenced by decades of safe consumption. Genetic engineering is portrayed as essential for overcoming global challenges like population growth and climate change. The script also touches on the potential dual-use nature of genetic engineering, highlighting the need for careful study, control, and understanding.

05:02

🐟 The Reality of GMOs in the American Diet

This paragraph delves into the prevalence of GMOs in the U.S., particularly in plants and the potential for genetically modified animals. It discusses the FDA's review of a genetically engineered salmon and the ubiquity of GMOs in staple crops like sugar beets, corn, and soybeans. The paragraph also highlights an example of a GMO developed to combat vitamin A deficiency, illustrating the potential benefits of genetic engineering for human health. It explains the concept of 'genetically modified organism' and distinguishes between traditional selective breeding and modern genetic engineering techniques.

10:05

🌽 The History and Process of Genetic Engineering

The script provides a historical overview of genetic engineering, from the early 20th-century mutation breeding methods to the development of transgenic organisms. It describes the process of creating GMOs, including the use of gene guns and Agrobacterium to insert foreign genes into plant cells. The paragraph outlines the steps of backcross breeding to integrate engineered genes into traditional crop strains. It also discusses the economic and legal aspects of GMOs, including the high costs and patent restrictions associated with their development and cultivation.

Keywords

💡GMOs

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. In the video, GMOs are discussed as a necessary advancement for facing global challenges like population growth and climate change. The script emphasizes that GMOs are not intrinsically bad and have been consumed safely for decades.

💡Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. The video explains that this process is crucial for the development of crops that can withstand environmental pressures and feed a growing population. It is portrayed as a tool that, while it must be carefully managed, has the potential for significant benefits.

💡Nitrogen Fixing

Nitrogen fixing is a natural process where certain bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form that plants can use. In the context of the video, it is mentioned as a historical example of how human manipulation of natural processes has previously benefited agriculture and food production.

💡Transgenesis

Transgenesis refers to the process of transferring genetic material from one species to another, which is a common method in creating GMOs. The script describes it as the technique used to develop crops that are resistant to herbicides or have other desirable traits, such as higher levels of growth hormone in the case of the engineered salmon.

💡Roundup-Ready Crops

Roundup-Ready crops are genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to kill weeds without harming their crops. The video uses these crops as an example to illustrate how genetic engineering can lead to practical agricultural benefits, such as reduced soil loss and decreased costs.

💡Flavr Savr Tomato

The Flavr Savr Tomato was the first genetically engineered food to be sold to consumers. It was designed to have a longer shelf life. The video script uses it as an example of an early GMO product that sparked debate and illustrates the challenges faced by GMOs in gaining public acceptance.

💡Gene Gun

A gene gun is a device that shoots DNA-coated metal particles into plant cells to transfer genes. The video explains how gene guns are used in genetic engineering to create GMOs, such as corn and rice, and provides a vivid example of the methods used to insert genes into plant cells.

💡Agrobacterium

Agrobacterium is a soil bacterium that naturally transfers DNA to plant cells. In genetic engineering, it is utilized as a vector to introduce desired genes into plants. The script describes how this natural process is harnessed in labs to create transgenic organisms.

💡Backcross Breeding

Backcross breeding is a technique used in genetic engineering to integrate new genetic material into traditional crop strains. The video explains that this process is lengthy and involves repeatedly crossing the genetically modified plant with traditional strains to develop a new crop variety.

💡Herbicide Resistance

Herbicide resistance is a genetically engineered trait that allows plants to survive exposure to herbicides that would normally kill them. The video discusses how this trait is used in crops like soybeans and corn to simplify weed control and reduce the environmental impact of farming.

💡Golden Rice

Golden Rice is a genetically modified strain of rice that contains higher levels of vitamin A. The video mentions it as an example of how GMOs can be used to address nutritional deficiencies, specifically vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness in children.

💡Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic resistance is a gene that allows organisms to withstand antibiotics. While the video does not go into detail about its use in food crops, it mentions an experiment where such a gene was transferred to tobacco plants, illustrating the capability of genetic engineering to introduce specific traits.

💡Economic and Cultural Consequences

The video discusses the economic and cultural consequences of GMOs, particularly the concentration of power in the hands of a few large companies that control the patents and sales of GM crops. This raises concerns about the control over the food supply and the potential for monopolization.

💡Ecological Effects

Ecological effects refer to the potential impact of GMOs on the environment and ecosystems. The script raises the question of how traits like insect resistance might affect non-target species, such as beneficial insects like bees and butterflies, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of environmental impacts.

Highlights

GMOs are not intrinsically bad for health; they have been consumed for decades without ill effects.

Genetic engineering is necessary for addressing global challenges such as population growth and climate change.

Genetic engineering can be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes, necessitating study, control, and understanding.

In the US, a majority of crops like sugar beets, corn, and soybeans are genetically modified for traits like insect and herbicide resistance.

GM rice has been developed to combat vitamin A deficiency, which causes blindness in children.

Genetic modification through artificial selection has been practiced since the invention of agriculture.

Brassica oleracea, or wild cabbage, has been bred into various garden staples like broccoli and cauliflower.

Selective breeding has transformed corn from a grass seed into a sweet and starchy crop over centuries.

Transgenesis involves extracting genes from one species and fusing them into the genome of another.

Early 20th-century scientists used radiation and chemicals to induce mutations in plants for genetic diversity.

The Flavr Savr Tomato was the first genetically engineered crop sold to consumers, with a longer shelf life.

Most GMOs today are commodity crops like feed corn and soybeans, used in processed foods or as animal fodder.

Roundup-ready crops are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup, allowing for easier weed control in farming.

Gene guns and Agrobacterium are methods used to transfer genes into plant cells for genetic engineering.

Backcross breeding is the process of integrating engineered genes into traditional crop strains.

The development and approval process for GM crops is lengthy and expensive, reflecting their economic value.

Economic and cultural concerns about GM crops center around the concentration of power in a few large companies.

Scientific concerns include the potential ecological effects of engineered traits and the impact on non-GM and organic farming.

Despite opposition and controversy, there is no evidence that genetically modified food poses a danger to human health.

Genetic engineering should be part of the solution to increase crop yields and reduce resource use in agriculture.

Transcripts

Hello!

I'm Hank Green, and this is SciShow!

So, we made a video about this once before, but some of the studies we cited turned out

to be bunk, and, in general, I think we played our cards too close to our chest when it comes

to how we really feel about genetic engineering here at SciShow.

So, why are GMOs bad?

They're not.

They just aren’t, not intrinsically, and certainly not for your health.

We’ve been eating them for decades with no ill effects, which makes sense, because

a genetically modified organism is simply an organism, like any other organism, that

produces hundreds of thousands of proteins, but one or two of them are proteins that were

chosen specifically by us humans.

Genetic engineering is necessary for the continued success of the human experiment here on planet

Earth.

Just like the advent of nitrogen fixing allowed for more fertile fields that saved millions

from starvation, the fruits of genetic engineering (sometimes literally) will help us face the

significant challenges of a world with more and more people and a climate that is less

and less stable.

Of course, just like nitrogen fixing also allowed Germany to build bigger bombs, genetic

engineering is a tool that can be used for good or for evil.

So, yes, it must be studied and controlled and understood.

But that understanding has to start with, like, us.

Right now!

[Intro]

If you live in the United States, you almost certainly eat genetically modified organisms,

or GMOs; thus far, it’s just plants, though pretty much every kind of meat on the market

was likely fed with GM corn at some point.

And it won’t be long before the animals themselves are genetically modified.

In 2012, the FDA reviewed a new kind of Atlantic salmon, engineered to have higher levels of

growth hormone, using the genes of Pacific salmon and an eel-like fish called the ocean

pout.

They concluded that the engineered fish was safe and opened up the discussion for public

comment, but still haven’t announced a final decision.

GMOs are everywhere in the US, pretty much literally.

95% of sugar beets, 88% of corn, 94% of soybeans grown in the U.S. contain traits -- like being

insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant -- that were engineered into them.

And some crops are genetically modified simply for human benefit.

Around 500,000 children go blind every year because of vitamin A deficiency.

So a strain of rice has been developed that, unlike normal rice, contains enough vitamin

A to keep children healthy.

Or, healthier, anyway.

Now the term “genetically modified organism” is actually somewhat of a misnomer.

I mean, people have been genetically modifying organisms since the invention of agriculture.

Every plant and animal species has natural genetic variability, and for thousands of

years, we’ve harnessed this variability by practicing artificial selection.

We cultivate and breed organisms to emphasize their most desirable traits - cows that produce

more milk and squash plants that survive drought.

Brassica oleracea, also known as wild cabbage, has been bred so intensively that it is the

wild ancestor of half a dozen different garden staples, including broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower,

brussel sprouts.

kohlrabi and kale.

Corn originally looked like this.

Over the years of selective breeding, we have turned it into a massive, crazy giant mutant

version that we happily throw on the grill without thinking of the centuries of breeding

necessary to turn a grass seed into a sweet and starchy masterpiece.

But when we talk about GMOs today, we’re actually talking about genetically engineered

organisms or transgenic organisms.

We’re talking about genes from one species being extracted and then fused into the genome

of a different species.

This is called transgenesis, and though not all GMO food is created this way, transgenic

crops are by far the most common kind of genetically engineered organisms you come across.

But here's the thing: engineered organisms aren’t anything new either -- we’ve been

tinkering with food in laboratories for nearly a hundred years.

In the 1920s, scientists realized that they could cause mutations in plants -- thereby

creating more genetic diversity and possibly more desirable traits-- by exposing them to

x-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals.

Through the 1970s, these methods of mutation breeding were quite popular, and completely

unregulated and largely ignored by the public.

Thousands of cultivars produced this way are currently on the market.

It's a kind of brute-force hack, just mess the genes up, plant the seeds, and see what

happens and then breed the cool new traits back into various strains of crop.

Then in 1983, scientists pioneered a new tactic, where they successfully took a gene from an

antibiotic-resistant bacterium and spliced it into the DNA of a tobacco plant.

Now, of course, antibiotic-resistant tobacco doesn't have any real purpose, but it did

prove that single-gene transfer was possible.

The new practice of transgenics was born.

Now the GM industry wasn’t really able to take hold until 1994, when the USDA approved

something called the Flavr Savr Tomato, a fruit, invented by a California biotech company,

that was altered so that it took longer to ripen, giving it a longer shelf life.

It was the first genetically engineered crop sold to consumers.

The Flavr Savr, though, didn’t last very long -- partly because people didn’t like

the taste, and partly because others, mainly in Europe, were suspicious of its genetic

alterations.

The flavr savr, and its non-ideal flavr touched off a debate that continues to rage.

Today, most GMOs aren’t found in your produce section like the Flavr Savr was.

Instead, more than 90 percent of commercially grown GM foods are commodity crops, staples

like feed corn and soybeans, which have been modified to resist herbicides or insects.

These crops are used to make the ingredients in lots of the processed foods we eat, or

are used as fodder for animals that we later enjoy consuming the flesh of.

Probably the most well-known of these transgenic crops are the so-called Roundup-ready crops

-- foods like soybeans, corn, sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa and canola that are engineered

to resist the herbicide Roundup.

These crops provide us with some, you might say, digestible examples of how transgenic

foods are engineered, why they’re made the way they are, what they do as well as what

they don't do.

Let’s start with why they were made in the first place.

The active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup is glyphosate, a chemical that inhibits an

enzyme plants use to synthesize amino acids.

By blocking this enzyme, Roundup stops plants from making what they need to grow and metabolize

food, thereby killing them.

And it pretty much takes no prisoners.

So much so that it can be hard to use around plants that you don’t want to kill, like

your crops.

So in the early 1990s, the company that makes Roundup, Monsanto, decided to develop crops

that were resistant to glyphosate, so farmers could spray the herbicide over their whole

crop, but only kill the weeds.

See, there are microorganisms that produce an enzyme that is unaffected by glyphosate.

All Monsanto had to do was transfer those bacteria genes to food plants, and farmers

could use Roundup to protect their crops without killing them.

So they extracted small pieces of bacterial DNA that were responsible for making the enzyme

and set about introducing them into plants.

But how do you get the genes of a bacterium into the nucleus of a plant cell?

On the Tree of Life, plants and bacteria aren’t even on the same branch!

Well, it turns out there are a couple of pretty interesting ways.

The first involves gene guns.

Yeah, you heard me!

Gene guns!

Gene guns do pretty much what they sound like -- literally and kind of haphazardly, blasting

DNA into plant cells.

Most commonly used to engineer corn and rice species, they start with tiny particles of

gold that are coated with hundreds of copies of a desired donor gene, called a transgene.

Cells from the plant that’s gonna receive the new genes are put into a vacuum chamber

and then, fire away!

The gene-covered gold particles are shot at the cells using high-pressure gas.

Once inside the nucleus of a plant cell, the gold dissolves, and the scientists cross their

fingers and hope that the DNA is taken up by the chromosomes in the nucleus, which it

sometimes it.

Once the transgenes have been incorporated into the plant’s DNA, it can then be bred

into offspring plants.

Not exactly elegant, but it's a heck of a lot more subtle than just bombarding the seed

with radiation and hoping for the best.

Another more recent, and more effective, way to create transgenic organisms involves using

a soil-dwelling bacterium called Agrobacterium.

This is a plant parasite and a natural genetic engineer – it has an extra, and quite special,

piece of DNA called a plasmid that can move outside the bacterium and implant itself into

a plant cell.

In nature, the Agrobacterium uses this lil' trick to re-code plant cells to grow food

for it.

But in the lab, engineers can use the plasmid as a kind of carrier for fancy transgenes,

using it to infuse plant cells with new genetic material.

So -- whether you’ve used the Agrobacterium or the gene guns, you now have a new engineered

crop plant.

But you can’t just put that thing into the ground -- you have to introduce this new genetic

material into existing, traditional strains of the crop.

This last step, called backcross breeding, involves repeatedly crossing the new transgenic

plant with breeding stock, over and over again, until you wind up with a new transgenic crop.

At the end of the process, Monsanto had a patented plant that could be sprayed with

glyphosate and survive.

Previously, plants would have to be seeded far enough apart that machines could till

away competing weeds, increasing soil loss and costs to the farmer, not to mention fuel

consumption.

Plus, Monsanto gets a whole new, massive customer base for glyphosate.

It’s a long process – the whole thing can take as long as 15 years – but that’s

how just about all genetic engineering is done to your food, whether scientists are

putting a bacterium’s antibiotic resistance into a tobacco plant, or an eel’s growth

pattern into a salmon.

Of course, then there’s the process of getting the crop or animal approved for use, which

can also take quite a number of years.

At the moment, it’s extremely expensive, though there are some technologies on the

horizon that might make it cheaper.

The fact that it’s so expensive and yet still economically worth doing indicates how

extremely useful GM crops can be.

It also means that the companies that produce them closely guard and restrict the patents

and sale and growth and even research done on the crops.

One of the reasons engineered foods are attacked so viciously is not because of the scientific

consequences of their existence, but the economic and cultural consequences of placing so much

power over our food supply into the hands of very few very large companies.

The GMO debate has become something of a surrogate for a much larger debate about economics that,

frankly, is out of our league.

There are scientific concerns about genetically modified food.

How does inserting a single gene, for example, rather than swapping out huge hunks of genetic

material, affect the genome at large?

We used to think “not at all,” but it turns out, the genome is more complicated

than that.

Additionally, many farmers save non-patented seed for next year's crop, something you can't

do with patented GM crop seed.

But if your public domain seed was unintentionally fertilized by a patented strain, you might

find that suddenly the seed you saved from last year's harvest to plant next year has

genes owned by someone else.

Someone who is, it turns out, suing you.

And if your livelihood depends on selling certified organic crops or selling into markets

where GMOs are prohibited, the consequences can be even more dire.

And, of course, the traits we're engineering into crops might have potential ecological

effects, like if we're engineering in insect resistance, we want to make sure that we're

not harming the insects we DO like, like bees and butterflies.

But after having been consumed in hundreds of millions of meals by me and probably by

you, and having been studied for decades, there has been zero implication that genetically

modified food poses a danger to human health.

That has not stopped an extremely vocal opposition from funding poorly-designed studies and publishing

misleading papers.

We here at SciShow even reported on a study indicating that GMOs caused an increase in

cancer in rats.

This study, led by a guy who was not-coincidentally publishing a book on the topic that same week

was published in a peer-reviewed journal and was initially taken at face value.

But cherry picked data, a lack of dose-response, small sample groups, and a strain of rat that

has an 80% chance of developing cancer in its lifespan eventually combined to completely

discredit the study.

Of course, as with any new technology, it can have unintended consequences; it can be

controlled and monopolized and even weaponized, so there is plenty of reason to keep an eye

on the companies making these advances.

But when considering the number of hungry people on the planet, we have an obligation

to explore every possible avenue to increase crop yields and to decrease the amount of

herbicide, pesticide, energy and water needed to produce a crop.

Traditional and advanced breeding methods need to be a part of that, and so does genetic

engineering.

Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow, and thank you to the people who pushed me

to write up a more complete and accurate version of this episode.

If you want to continue getting smarter with us, you can go to youtube.com/scishow and

subscribe.