When you hear the words genetically modified organism, GMO, or gen-mod food, what is your initial reaction? Does the thought of a scientifically manipulated fruit or vegetable make your mouth water? Or does it turn your stomach?
As a science writer, the topics I choose to cover vary from the mundane to the controversial, but I rarely see feather ruffling like I do when GMOs enter the conversation. Often the list of questions evoked is longer than the list of pros and cons we can draft on our own. Should we be tinkering with the genomes of plants to make them heartier, tastier, more nutritive? Does this process reduce their safety? Do consumers need to know whether their food has been genetically modified? And while we're at it, what exactly is genetic modification?
Seeking answers, I reached out to Dr. Kevin Folta, a professor in the plant molecular and cellular biology program at the University of Florida. His lab researches the role of novel genes in strawberries, and he's also a science communicator. He writes often about the role of GMOs in modern society, attempting to shed light on this often misunderstood science.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT
KEVIN FOLTA: I look at the scientists around me and the scientists I know, and you look at the anti-GMO activists, and we agree with them on just about every issue. We care about the environment, we’re into worker safety, we want to feed more people better nutritious food, we want to have sustainable ways to grow food, but we differ on this one area. And it’s really disappointing because we know a lot about it, we understand it, we understand it inside and out, so to us it doesn’t scare us.
CARA SANTA MARIA: Hi everyone. Cara Santa Maria here. And that's Dr. Kevin Folta. He's a professor in the plant molecular and cellular biology program at the University of Florida, and his lab researches the role of novel genes in strawberries. He's also a science communicator. He writes often about the role of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, in modern society.
KF: Anytime a scientist comes out and says something positive about technology the first thing that comes is, ‘Well you must work for Monsanto.’ None of us or most of us never got a dime from Monsanto, yet we’re always accused of being on their side because we’re on the side of science. In reality, the problem with Monsanto and the issues with Monsanto is that they’re a company and they’re a huge agronomic company, a multinational company with many facets in agriculture. The company and their business practices and their social practices has to be considered separate from the science.
CSM: Speaking of the science, I was under the impression that pretty much everything we eat has been manipulated one way or another--genetically modified--with a goal of making better food. Kevin told me that although genetic modification refers to any means of manipulating an organism's genome, whether through age-old breeding techniques like hybridization or newer lab-based approaches, most anti-GMO activists speak out against transgenic plants, those who have received a targeted insertion or deletion of a single gene sequence.
KF: The controversy is really curious to scientists, because scientists like me really realize that we’ve been using all kinds of genetic manipulation techniques, whether it's plants have been subjected to radiation, they've been subjected to all kinds of chemical modifications for 50 years to get more genetic variation, which can be incorporated for improved plant products and improved plant performance. So the scientists, we think, well, this addition of one extra gene shouldn’t really matter. We’ve been mixing hybrids where 50,000 genes mix with 50,000 genes, and we don’t have any idea what those genes are doing. Yet that’s perfectly acceptable. But if you add one gene of known function that you can trace, and you know what it does, and you know what it encodes, somehow that’s causing controversy. That’s a real paradox to scientists who study this area.
CSM: At the top of the agenda for many anti-GMO activists is an initiative to include a label on all genetically modified food indicating it as such. The more we know about what we eat, the better, right? What could be wrong with that? But Kevin warns about the hidden downside.
KF: I think the major problem that we will see from the labeling initiative is that activists that have initiated this legislation, or this proposed legislation, will use a label as a warning label. And it won’t just be there for information, saying this product may contain genetically modified ingredients, what it will turn into is a way of targeting that particular product, by using all of the disinformation that’s out there, all of the bad websites, all of the bogus information that’s propagated in this area to leverage maybe a political or business agenda against the companies that create transgenic foods. And even in the absence of any scientific evidence that says they’re dangerous, they will go ahead and show and convince people that they’re dangerous. I think the problem that we have there is a supply and demand one. Once you’re able to scare people away from 70 percent of the food that’s out there, now you’re going to see higher prices and fewer consumer choices and that will affect the poorest people most first.
CSM: Did you hear that? 70 percent of the food on our shelves is transgenic. Now don't get me wrong, there are some risks involved. Since large quantities of herbicide are used on crops that were engineered to be herbicide-resistant, we're starting to see weeds that have developed that same resistance. These weeds can invade nearby farmlands and cause problems for local farmers. But, Kevin says that the benefits outweigh the risks.
KF: I think that there’s a tremendous benefit that we can see from, on so many levels, from being able to use transgenics in useful ways. We need to be able to feed more people higher quality food with less environmental impact, and to me all of those things are in the hands of being able to rapidly generate new plant lines and new production practices, whether it’s improved organic and sustainable practices, whether it’s better conventional practices, or conventional breeding, transgenics should be part of that.
CSM: What do you think about transgenic food? Sound off on Twitter, Facebook, or leave a comment right here on The Huffington Post. Come on, talk nerdy to me!
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts.
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook.
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter.
Also on HuffPost:
Glow-in-the-dark cats
In 2007, South Korean scientists altered a cat’s DNA to make it glow in the dark and then took that DNA and cloned other cats from it — creating a set of fluffy, <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/13/4349719-cloned-cats-that-glow" target="_hplink">fluorescent felines</a>. Here’s how they did it: The researchers took skin cells from Turkish Angora female cats and used a virus to insert genetic instructions for making red fluorescent protein. Then they put the gene-altered nuclei into the eggs for cloning, and the cloned embryos were implanted back into the donor cats — making the cats the surrogate mothers for their own clones. What’s the point of creating a pet that doubles as a nightlight? Scientists say the ability to engineer animals with fluorescent proteins will enable them to artificially create animals with human genetic diseases.
Enviropig
The <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/" target="_hplink">Enviropig</a>, or “Frankenswine,” as critics call it, is a pig that’s been genetically altered to better digest and process phosphorus. Pig manure is high in phytate, a form of phosphorus, so when farmers use the manure as fertilizer, the chemical enters the watershed and causes algae blooms that deplete oxygen in the water and kill marine life. So scientists added an E. Coli bacteria and mouse DNA to a pig embryo. This modification decreases a pig’s phosphorous output by as much as 70 percent — making the pig more environmentally friendly.
Pollution-fighting plants
Scientists at the University of <a href="http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/washington" target="_hplink">Washington</a> are <a href="http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs082-98/" target="_hplink">engineering poplar trees that can clean up contamination sites</a> by absorbing groundwater pollutants through their roots. The plants then break the pollutants down into harmless byproducts that are incorporated into their roots, stems and leaves or released into the air. In laboratory tests, the transgenic plants are able to remove as much as 91 percent of trichloroethylene — the most common groundwater contaminant at U.S. Superfund sites — out of a liquid solution. Regular poplar plants removed just 3 percent of the contaminant.
Venomous cabbage
Scientists have recently taken the gene that programs poison in scorpion tails and combined it with cabbage. Why would they want to create <a href="http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v12/n2/full/7290120a.html" target="_hplink">venomous cabbage</a>? To limit pesticide use while still preventing caterpillars from damaging cabbage crops. These genetically modified cabbages produce scorpion poison that kills caterpillars when they bite leaves — but the toxin is modified so it isn’t harmful to humans.
Web-spinning goats
Strong, flexible spider silk is one of the most valuable materials in nature, and it could be used to make an array of products — from artificial ligaments to parachute cords — if we could just produce it on a commercial scale. In 2000, Nexia Biotechnologies announced it had the answer: <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news194539934.html" target="_hplink">a goat that produced spiders’ web protein</a> in its milk. Researchers inserted a spiders’ dragline silk gene into the goats’ DNA in such a way that the goats would make the silk protein only in their milk. This “silk milk” could then be used to manufacture a web-like material called Biosteel.
Fast-growing salmon
AquaBounty’s genetically modified salmon grows twice as fast as the conventional variety — the photo shows two same-age salmon with the genetically altered one in the rear. The company says the fish has the same flavor, texture, color and odor as a regular salmon; however, the debate continues over whether the fish is safe to eat. <a href="http://www.aquabounty.com/products/products-295.aspx" target="_hplink">Genetically engineered Atlantic salmon</a> has an added growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce growth hormone year-round. Scientists were able to keep the hormone active by using a gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout, which acts as an “on switch” for the hormone. If the FDA approves the sale of the salmon, it will be the first time the government has allowed modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. According to federal guidelines, the fish would not have to be labeled as genetically modified.
Flavr Savr tomato
The <a href="http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes" target="_hplink">Flavr Savr tomato</a> was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption. By adding an antisense gene, the <a href="http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/california" target="_hplink">California</a>-based company Calgene hoped to slow the ripening process of the tomato to prevent softening and rotting, while allowing the tomato to retain its natural flavor and color. The FDA approved the Flavr Savr in 1994; however, the tomatoes were so delicate that they were difficult to transport, and they were off the market by 1997. On top of production and shipping problems, the tomatoes were also reported to have a very bland taste: “The Flavr Savr tomatoes didn’t taste that good because of the variety from which they were developed. There was very little flavor to save,” said Christ Watkins, a horticulture professor at Cornell University.
<a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/banana-vaccines" target="_hplink"><strong>CLICK HERE</strong></a> to continue on to <a href="http://www.mnn.com" target="_hplink">Mother Nature Network</a> to see the rest of these bizarre genetically engineered creations, including <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/banana-vaccines" target="_hplink">banana vaccines</a>, <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/less-flatulent-cow" target="_hplink">less-flatulent cows</a>, <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/medicinal-eggs" target="_hplink">medicinal eggs</a> and more!
Loading comments… 
Posted: 08/07/2012 7:41 am Updated: 08/08/2012 5:44 pm