Learning about GMOs: A reflection on year one

It's been over a year now since I started learning about GMOs and writing this blog. I've learned so much and am humbled every day by how much I have yet to learn. But as I look back and reflect on the knowledge gained, I also see that it's quite a bit, particularly considering all the life-events that have taken place in parallel. I thought that I'd share with you my learnings about GMOs that have surprised me the most.

Some of these were on the level of an M. Night Shyamalan movie-twist for me. Some are not even about GMOs, but just about agriculture and our food in general. Yeah... I kinda feel embarrassed about not knowing a few on the list... Don't judge me!

Corn. But without the syringe in it to depict that it's a GMO,
it's not really scary.
From Wikimedia Commons

1) The vast majority of fruits and vegetables are not transgenics. Before starting this blog, I thought that most of what we ate were transgenic crops, meaning that they had a gene/protein from a different species. I had heard so much about tomatoes with fish genes and strawberries that would never freeze that I just assumed that all that stuff was out on the market. Every time I picked up a fruit in the supermarket that was particularly large, I thought to myself "huh... that's got to be a GMO". You know those grapes that are the size of a tennis ball, and squirt juice everywhere when you bite into them? Every time I ate one, I'd close my eyes and thank the mysterious GMO gods for that sweet delicious nectar. Little did I know that none of these fruits were GMOs. They were genetically modified in the sense that they had been bred and selected to have optimal sweetness and size through cross-breeding. But they weren't transgenic organisms. There are only a handful of transgenic crops such as corn, soy, or cotton. The short list can be found in this database (note that you have to select the type of approval to determine if the GMO has been commercialized or not).

2) Organic food production uses pesticides (EDIT: Not all organic food production and only pesticides that are permitted under the USDA's organic label and approved by the EPA. Which is also true about conventional farming). This one blew my mind. I couldn't believe it! I thought that by definition, organic food production did not use pesticides. Not only that, but some of the pesticides used are more toxic than those applied in conventional farming. The difference is that the pesticides used in organic farming are not synthetic. No idea why that is better... Here's a list of pesticides approved for use in organic farming.

3) Many plant traits are developed using mutagenesis. And can be labeled "Organic". This one melted my brain and the spouse still doesn't get it altogether. Mutagenesis is the use of radioactivity or mutating chemicals to create random mutations in plants, and selecting those with the desired trait (here's my blog post with an overview of various papers, and here's the Wikipedia article on the technique). This article from the New York Times lists wheat, barley and even ruby red grapefruits as crops generated through mutagenesis. Imagine that!! The delicious, organic, grapefruit from my farmers' market was developed using radiation to randomly create mutations, and somehow that's less scary than a GMO. Why the organic food movement isn't fighting for their labeling seems hypocritical, and the fact that they can exist under the umbrella of the organic label is astounding. Again: Mind. Blown.

4) There's lot of peer reviewed research on GMOs, both publically and privately funded. I mean a LOT. I remember the first time I typed in MON810 into PubMed (a database hosted by the NIH), I got over 100 hits. That's 100+ studies that have looked into some aspect, such as identification or safety, on a single seed/trait (MON810 is Monsanto's Bt corn) Since it's a database search, let's assume that some of them are only loosely related to MON810. But even if 50% are discarded, that still leaves us with 50+ studies on a single trait/seed. In a Q&A with the founders of Biofortified.org, they mentioned that the most common misconception about GMOs is that there aren't any studies. Although I didn't think that there were no studies whatsoever, I was blown away by the sheer number/volume of studies, many of which are publicly funded.

Don't get me wrong: just because I haven't read any credible studies suggesting that GMOs pose a health risk does not mean that we should stop studying them, both in terms of technical methods in their generation, as well as safety. Go ahead. Go to pubmed and type in MON810 :)

5) Types of traits used to generate GMOs generally benefit farmers, not shoppers. What I mean is that there aren't many GM crops where the trait introduced was selected because it would make me want to buy it in the grocery store. There are several crops in the pipeline designed for me, such as non-browning apples or soy that has healthy oils (my post about the non-browning apple is here). But at the moment, most crops are designed to benefit farmers, such as Bt crops which help farmers reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed to fight worms, or Glyphosate resistant crops, which help farmers fight weeds using glyphosate (my post about glyphosate is here). I have yet to write on the topic of whether GM crops lead to decreased pesticide use, so I have a lot to learn on this topic. 

It's important not to misinterpret this point: when costs decrease for farmers, the end consumer pays less. But this is an indirect benefit for the shopper. It'll be interesting to see if crops that directly benefit shoppers will impact their perspectives on GMOs.

6) The amount of misinformation surrounding this topic is staggering. And depressing. It ranges from the subtle, where statements are simply taken out of context or the complete findings of a paper are not provided, to outright lies. I expected that there would be misinformation, but I guess I was pretty naïve and didn't think it would be THAT bad. But it's downright awful. For example, the Institute for Responsible Technology's website states "The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function." The paper which this statement is based off of actually says "it is highly unlikely that the gene transfer events seen in this study would alter gastrointestinal function or pose a risk to human health" (this topic was reviewed in this post). This is a subtle little white lie, when you contrast it with the downright deceptive (and dangerous) statement that GM insulin poses a health risk (Dr Kevin Folta reviewed this topic here).

I still have a tough time understanding why certain organizations would use such deceptive means to attack a technology. I think Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it best in his recent Facebook post on the topic of GMOs:  "If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct. In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with."

I was surprised at how many people distrust GMOs because of Monsanto. That's not a good reason for distrusting a technology with broad applications. It's like saying that you don't trust computers because of Microsoft. But conventional food growers buy Monsanto seeds too, and Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on GM technology. So what do life saving technologies, such as insulin, have to do with Monsanto? What about Golden Rice? What about bananas designed to combat nutritional deficiency in Uganda? I was taken aback at how vehemently these are opposed, just because of the Monsanto-boogie-man.

7) Transgenic seeds are not sterile. I was certain that transgenic seeds could not be replanted, even if a farmer wanted to. I was dead wrong. When farmers buy seeds from a biotech company such as Syngenta, they sign an agreement, and they are not allowed to replant seeds. However, the seed is not sterile or unviable. (The topic of replanting seeds and terminator seeds was covered in my blog post here).

8) Peer review doesn't mean anything these days. Even if you don't factor in the issue of predatory or pay-for-play journals, peer review needs a new paradigm (check out this article for a great expose of predatory journals). In an article that sounds an awful lot like a story about drug trafficking, a "peer-review ring" got recently busted for abusing the academic review process. Although there's a growing number of ways to share concerns or criticisms about a paper, it hasn't led to a change in the review process. There's a whole website dedicated to covering stories about peer reviewed articles getting retracted.

Setting aside the reason behind errors in scientific journals, be they deliberate or not, there needs to be a positive feedback loop.

Personally, I think that scientists in the private sector should be able to provide feedback to the reviewers and editors about one of their products. They provide press-statements anyway once the paper's been published, so wouldn't it make sense to have their feedback and criticism in hand as a non-voting voice in the review process. Do you know who would read every single sentence several times, including the Supporting Materials section, in a paper that suggests that a GM trait is harmful? The scientist who made it and the company who commercialized it. If anyone is going to identify a flaw in a paper, it will be them. I don't think that their statement should carry weight in the decision of whether or not a paper should be published. But I think it will make the reviewer's job easier to have their observations in hand.


For the final point, I interviewed the spouse to find out what had surprised him most from all our discussions:

"9) That the greatest tool in combating misinformation on scientific topics is for scientists to be better communicators and to better educate the public. I was surprised to see that the link between the public's superstition regarding GMOs is directly related to their education or lack thereof. If we had better scientific literacy or better science education, it would cause less freak-outs. As a non-science person, my AHA!-moment came when I finally understood how eating a strawberry-fish smoothie would be same thing as eating a strawberry with a fish gene in it, because we can process and digest proteins from both species. That's such a small-little thing, but it created such a mental barrier."

Well, there you have it. Feel free to comment on the things that have surprised you most on this topic.

A look into non-browning Apples or Arctic Apples

The kid eating an apple from a friend's tree

I'm stuck at home with a cold. Urgh... But it's giving me a chance to catch up on my blog. At the request of one of my Venezuelan high school buddies, this blog will be about Arctic Apples or non-browning apples.

The Arctic Apple is not yet on the market. It's currently under approval in Canada and the US. If approved, it will be one of the very first genetically modified fruits to hit the market. It is being made by a small company in British Columbia, Canada, called Okanagan Specialty Fruits, so there has been no involvement of "big Ag" in the development of the Arctic Apple. The technology for the non-browning apples will be patented and owned by the company.

So, why non-browning apples? I thought it was a pretty odd choice and seemed like a cosmetic, "first-world" issue. But according to this article from the New York Times, 60% of consumers were likely to purchase the fruit (however, a separate survey found that 70% of Canucks did not approve of a genetically modified apple). The Arctic Apple's website highlights the fact that a lot more places would use apples if they didn't brown and that a lot of apples are thrown out. When I examine my own shopping habits, I think it's probably true. I never pick up a bruised apple at the grocery store and my toddler doesn't eat brown apples, even though my husband and I do. If you consider that groceries generally display their best produce, it leaves you wondering how many bruised apples were discarded from the farm to the store. A recent piece in NPR highlights that Americans throw away half their food, much of which is still edible. According to Wikipedia, apples are the third most discarded food in the UK, so it may rank highly in the US as well. The Arctic Apple's website also mentions that pre-sliced apples have additives to keep them from browning, which impact flavor. Personally, I can't taste the additives on McDonald's apple slices, but maybe some people can. The company is also banking on the fact that the juice/cider from Arctic Apples is clear, so they will not need anti-browning treatment in the juice/cider production process. But none of this really matters because in the end, this a product being made by a private company, so I'm going to assume they've done all the marketing research before investing millions of dollars in making a genetically modified fruit. After all, I thought the iPad was a stupid idea and now I own one...

Before describing how the Arctic Apple has been genetically modified, we have to understand why apples turn brown (additional reference is here). Apples begin browning when they are injured: cells break down and release two molecules that were previously in different compartments. The joining of these two compounds in the presence of oxygen leads to the formation of a pigmented polymer. The two compounds that are joined are a) polyphenol oxidases (PPO), which are a class of enzymes, and b) phenols. So when you cut, bite or bruise an apple, you damage cells and bring these compounds into contact with one another. Some types of apples brown more quickly than others because they have more PPO. This is the same process that makes bananas brown as well.

The Arctic Apple doesn't have as much of the PPO enzymes, because the transgene that has been added triggers a process called RNA interference. RNA interference is a naturally occurring defense mechanism against viruses that basically hacks up specific RNA. But scientists have been harnessing the same methodology for decades to decrease the amount of RNA for a gene (I actually used it 7-8 years ago during my thesis). If you manage to get rid of the RNA, then the protein doesn't get made. In the Arctic Apple, they added a DNA sequence that triggers RNA interference for all the different PPO enzymes. The RNA gets chopped up, the PPO enzyme never gets made, so the apples never brown. Apparently, the Arctic Apple manages to turn off the PPO enzyme by ~90%. Not too shabby. It's important to note that the sequence that has been added that triggers that RNA interference process is from the apple itself. It isn't from a different species.

A few additional segments of DNA are in the Arctic Apple which are outlined here. The most controversial of these is a gene conferring antibiotic resistance (to kanamyacin). When working with transgenes, these antibiotic resistant markers are needed in the early stages in the lab so that you can figure out which cells picked up the transgene and which ones didn't.

So what are some of the criticisms of the Arctic Apple and are they legitimate? Here's a list of the arguments I found:

1) GMO Arctic Apples Antibiotic Gene Set to Destroy US Apple Exports. I kid you not: that's actually the title of the article. There's so much going on in this article. Let's go through the arguments one by one:

• Consumers are worried about antibiotic resistance. Understandable. However, apparently, the antibiotic resistance gene is only turned on in leaves and isn't present in the fruit. In fact, just for kicks, I tried to search for recipes that used apple leaves. All of them had apple leaves made out of delicious pastry, so I don't think that anyone will be impacted by this. Regarding the ingestion of the DNA of the antibiotic resistance gene (i.e. not the protein), I've already covered this in a previous post and it's a dead argument.
• The use of Kanamycin as the marker gene in GMO Arctic Apples means that EU regulators may refuse to allow imports of not just GM Apples from North America but also all North American apples over cross-pollination and gene transfer fears. Whaaaaaaat??? I'm not sure I understand this. First of all, Okanagan Specialty Fruits is only seeking approval in the US and Canada. Not only that, but the European Food Safety Authority has thoroughly investigated the topic of antibiotic resistance through GMOs. Here's the conclusion: "the current state of knowledge indicates that adverse effects on human health and the environment resulting from the transfer of these two antibiotic resistance genes from GM plants to bacteria, associated with use of GM plants, are unlikely." That quote is from 2009. In contrast, the article provides a quote from the EU where they suggest phasing out the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GMOs. Their quote is from 2001.
• This is another blow to the struggling EU-US apple relations. Apparently apple and pear exports to the EU have declined >70%, according to article. But this is due to "different regulatory standards and requirements for pesticides and food additives". The Arctic Apple tree does not need any different type of pesticide or herbicide, so this argument doesn't really apply (unless someone is going to suggest that a GMO is a "food additive")

2) The Modified Arctic Apple: Bad News No Matter How You Slice It. Man... I wish I could come up with awesome, pun-filled titles like that. It also has a huge list of concerns, so here we go!

• A new, almost entirely untested genetic modification technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), is responsible for this new food miracle". So, this one is semi-true. RNA-interference is definitely not a untested genetic modification technology. As I previously mentioned, scientists have been using it in labs for decades, and much work has been done in trying to make gene therapy and drugs using the technology. However, the Arctic Apple is the first commercial genetically modified food that I know of that will use this technology, but I'm sure that it will be the first of many (and several are in the works). 
• Scientists warn that this genetic manipulation poses health risks, as the manipulated RNA gets into our digestive systems and bloodstreams. Well, there's no reference, so I'm not sure what scientists they're referring to. But this concern is along the same lines as the concern regarding the digestion of DNA from GMOs, which has already been covered in a previous post. But for the sake of science fiction, I imagined the scenario where the ingestion of the manipulated RNA got into our system and actually did something. I think that the apocalypse that the article is implying is the possibility that the RNA might trigger the RNAi pathway within our bodies. But the thing is that I couldn't find any reference to the existence of the PPO enzyme in mammals. But I decided to delve deeper into this fantastic universe that the article was postulating and I took the DNA sequence from the PPO enzyme in the apple and tried to see if there was anything similar enough in the human genome (for all the nerdy-geeks, I did a standard BLAT using UCSC's genome browser). Guess what? Nothing. It couldn't identify anything even remotely similar to the PPO enzyme in humans. I checked in the mouse, dolphin, and a few other mammals. I finally found a small region of similarity in the chicken genome (approximately 5% of the PPO gene was similar to a region in the chicken genome, but I couldn't find any evidence that there were any chicken genes there). I'd like to believe that I kicked this argument in the butt. Keep in mind that if all we had to do was to eat the DNA/RNA of a gene to trigger RNA interference in our bodies, wouldn't we be chugging the DNA/RNA for genes to make us skinny, lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar, etc? Obviously, it doesn't work that way.
• ... a pesticide-intensive GMO apple, produced through a risky manipulation of RNA, doesn’t deserve a place on our grocery shelves... As previously mentioned, this apple doesn't need special pesticide or herbicide. It could very well be grown using herbicides/pesticides that are approved for organic use.

Cutest/chubbiest hands EVER!!

The final argument that I read about is that by "hiding" the browning of the apple, consumers will not know how old the apple really is. The company argues that by diminishing the browning, it will make mold and bacteria even more visible, which I think makes sense. I think we'd all have to alter our standards for what we consider a fresh apple to be. In my house, we generally throw out a cut apple by the end of the day, but I could see myself cutting a whole batch of apples at the beginning of the week to last throughout the week, if they don't brown. 

The company's website also extols the health benefits of the Arctic Apple. They claim that by suppressing the amount of PPO in the apple, you actually have more anti-oxidants available to you. I'm a bit skeptical of this claim, because the amount of phenols that get oxidized (browned) seems very small compared to the amount that's in the non-browned portion of the apple. If they could do a study to demonstrate this, it would go a lot further in my mind.

Well, there you have it. My conclusion: I'll buy the apples if they don't cost significantly more than regular apples. If they do cost significantly more, I'll probably buy them only for my kid, while he's being picky about his apples. The spouse wants Arctic bananas, and is hoping they get made soon.

Feel free to comment below. 

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/11/208143/pear-apple-exports-to-europe-plummet.html#storylink=cpy"