Bucks and Butterflies: Is it Worth Buying Non-GMO Foods? (Part 1)
Guest User
Take a stroll down the organic or health-food section in your grocery store, and you will likely see plastered on various products a ubiquitous, innocuous butterfly logo with the words “Non GMO Project Verified”—usually entailing a premium cost.
What are GMOs?
GMO stands for “genetically modified organism”, insinuating that specific genes have been incorporated into or removed from foods using modern day DNA engineering techniques; such techniques have been denounced by armchair nutritionists, bloggers, naturopaths, and their ilk (such as the “Food Babe”, Vani Hari) as being toxic to overall health and as a causative factor in the pandemic of chronic diseases plaguing Western societies (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.).
It’s tempting to put the blame on the archetypal Mad Scientist, deviously splicing Franken-genes into the genetic make-up of food crops while concocting carcinogenic monstrosities *cue maniacal laughter*. But is this true?
The non-GMO butterfly https://livingnongmo.org/learn/take-action/
Is it worth paying extra for that butterfly logo?
For starters, many food products that claim to be non-GMO contain no ingredients that could realistically be genetically modified in the first place (for instance, there is a product on the market called “Blk Premium Alkaline Water” claiming to be GMO free. Last time I checked, water does not contain any DNA. Ditto for “Himalayan Fine Pink Salt”).
Here in Canada, there really aren’t that many foods being sold that are genetically modified. They currently include: canola, corn, soy, sugar beet (used to produce sugar), alfalfa (used as animal feed), papaya, tomato, some varieties of squash (such as yellow crookneck squash), specific strains of wheat, potato, and cottonseed oil. [1]
So if you’re being tempted into buying kiwis, oranges, cucumbers, (or anything not on the above list for that matter), with the non-GMO label, quite frankly you are being manipulated into buying snake-oil.
Genetically modified organisms are altered in a controlled fashion, targeting only specific genes.
Health Canada requires strict scientific testing and assessment of new GMO foods before permitting them onto the market (a lengthy seven to ten-year process), which tests for their potential to produce toxins or allergens, to adversely affect nutrient composition, or to negatively impact the environment. [2]
Technically, even conventionally bred crops are considered genetically modified by Health Canada. But I digress.
Most critics of GMO foods are only going after genetically engineered foods (a method called “transgenesis”). In contrast, conventionally bred crops and animals have been genetically modified through these three processes:
- Selective breeding (practiced for the past 10,000 years): involves crossing similar or dissimilar plants or animals of the same species, with the goal of improving certain characteristics (examples: broccoli, cabbage, shih tzus). This method affects hundreds of thousands of genes, many of which are unknown.
- Interspecies crosses (practiced since the 1800s): involves culturing techniques, such as grafting, that permit genetics to cross between different species (examples: tangelos, some types of apple, Ligers). Again, this method affects hundreds of thousands of genes, many of which are unknown.
- Mutagenesis (practiced since the 1930s); involves the use of chemicals or radiation to change DNA and hopefully induce favourable traits (examples: pears, rice, mint, the Incredible Hulk). This process is completely random and the number of genes affected in this manner is indeterminate but likely is in the thousands (which genes are affected? It’s unknown).
Crops developed using selective breeding, interspecies crosses, and mutagenesis can qualify for the “Non GMO Project Verified” label. The scientific research pertaining to the safety of transgenic crops, however (compiled from over 10 years worth of analysed data) has yet to find any evidence of harm in humans—with the scientific consensus being that they are safe to eat. [3]
Since the controversies and subtleties surrounding the GMO debate are so fascinating given my article word-limit, ‘Part 2’ will address the following topics surrounding GMOs—"Round-Up”, Bt/Terminator genes, and Monsanto.
- Tyler Feeney-
Tyler Feeney
is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in Dietetics from McGill University (finishing in 2018). His first degree was in Biology with a concentration in plants from his home province of New Brunswick. His research focuses on how plant-based diets can shape our gut bacteria, food systems issues in the context of developing countries, and how different diets can impact odds of getting obesity and other chronic diseases of the Western world.
Disclaimer: The information provided is meant to spread knowledge and induce interest for educational purposes. It is based on limited research. We try to pull the overall message of the literature, but further research may be necessary. What is done with the information or suggestions is solely the consumer's decision. The information provided is not meant to treat or diagnose any medical condition. References are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute the endorsement of any website or other sources.
References
1. Government of Canada. Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Other Novel Foods. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products.html. Accessed October 1st, 2017.
2. Government of Canada. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/reports-publications/biotechnology/regulation-genetically-modified-foods.html. Accessed October 1st, 2017.
3. Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88.