The Destructive Potential of GMOs

I am opposed to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on many grounds.  These objections are on both moral and scientific grounds, and establish why they need to be regulated if not outright banned.  Unlike an organism that evolved symbiotically with its environment, a GMO has been specially designed in a laboratory to meet a given human need.  While I agree with the use of science to enhance our lives, we must be sure discoveries do that.

The major company involved in these practices, Monsanto, is in collusion with government regulators.  Often times it is the FDA that assists Monsanto in ensuring that its innovations stay out of the consumer's eye.  Monsanto sued and won a lawsuit in Ohio against farmers wishing to label their food “hormone free.” That is a complete squelch of freedom of speech.  They are targeting farmers that grow organically claiming that their seed was stolen to shut down businesses.  Now Monsanto is threatening to sue the state of Vermont for putting labeling identifying food that has GMOs.  I have my problems with organic farmers--crops take three times the land space and require "organic" pesticides which can actually be more toxic in many cases.  However they have a right to differentiate their product and have freedom of speech.

One of the reasons to stomp out poor science is that it can deligitimize the claims good scientists make.  Sadly, there have been crack claims that turn the public numb to new claims of legitimate concern.  To answer critics out there, there is good science [1] showing increased IgE immune responses as if an allergen or inflammatory agent was introduced when fed GM corn.  There is also further work [2] indicating there is often carcinogenic contamination of the corn from the large amounts of Round-Up used.  Allow me to point out that while the problem with cancer isn't the GMO itself, the fact that a Monsanto contracted farmer can put as much pesticide as needed to drive off undesirable organisms is the concern.

GMOs are mixing with indigenous populations of plants through horizontal and vertical gene transfer, or run of the mill sexual reproduction, (HGT, VGT) as predicted by evolutionary theory.  I'm surprised the scientists that made these things didn't consider that they are subject to the same natural process as any other living thing.  We are now finding natural wheat populations in states that carry the signature Monsanto genes for Round-Up resistance.  This means that other plants will likely pick up the genes via HGT.  These aren't super plants or super weeds by any means as the media likes to call them.  They are simply behaving according to the predictions of the theory we have demonstrated time and time again.  Speciation occurs continuously.  It means that weed killers will eventually stop working, and insects will develop immunities to toxins more quickly.

I rarely take the side of hackers.  Personally I was pursued by someone who claimed to be a member of Anonymous, so I won't offer any sympathy towards them.  However, I sometimes they do the right thing.  Anonymous apparently published some internal documents from Monsanto online, claiming they attacked the world's food supply.  While I'm not particularly sure there is actual malice or just disregard in the face of greater profit, there is truth to that statement.  The Monsanto genes have contaminated indigenous corn species throughout the Americas and have more than a couple farms in ruin.

GMOs set the legal precedent for the patenting of living things.  This is of grave concern to me.  Human cloning was banned by Bill Clinton in the 1990's.  The cloning ban however applies to Homo sapiens.  It doesn't include organisms that are similar to Homo sapiens that have been created by scientists.  Since living things can be patented, think about what will happen if a company patents the DNA of a human-like animal.  That animal can think, feel, and experience things like a human, but since their DNA is not human it isn't protected under the cloning ban.  Neither is it protected under the Constitution either.  To add insult to injury it is the property of a corporation.  Not just that organism, but all copies of it.  This invokes the ghost of slavery in my mind.

Further Reading & References

[1] Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice.  Alberto Finamore, Marianna Roselli, Serena Britti, Giovanni Monastra, Roberto Ambra, Aida Turrini, and Elena Mengheri.  Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.  2008 56 (23), 11533-11539

[2] Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois. Food and Chemical Toxicology. November 2012, 50