GMO: Friend Or Foe?

Why 20 years of health research has undermined safety claims and how to reduce your reliance on them.

- Jonny Bowden , PHD, CNS

Before I began work on my recent e-book on genetically modified foods (GMOs), I didn’t think GMO foods were such a big deal.

But by the time I finished the book, I felt very differently. The wholesale introduction of genetically modified organisms into the food supply is one of the most dangerous nutritional experiments in history. It has the potential to wreak havoc on many aspects of human health.

The pro-GMO crowd argues that GMOs increase yields, reduce pesticide use, benefit farmers, bring economic benefits, benefit the environment, reduce energy use, and will help feed the world. Most of those arguments fall apart under close examination; e.g., if it is so critical that GMO crops exist to feed the world, then why can we tolerate as much as 40 percent of the corn harvest being siphoned into production of ethanol? Or, if GMOs reduce the amount of herbicide used by farmers, then why was it necessary in 2013 for the EPA to double the permissible residual levels of the herbicide glyphosate in grains, while increasing levels permitted in sweet potatoes and carrots by factors of 15 and 25, respectively?

Right now, though, I’m concerned with the effect of GMOs on individual health.

Genetic modification means splicing the genes from one species onto the genes of another. There’s a big difference between genetic modification and breeding. You can make a mule by breeding a horse with a donkey. GMOs are fundamentally different. GMO creation is splicing the genes from one species (a fish, for example) onto another (a tomato).

This kind of gene splicing has a huge potential for disaster, because we’re taking something that does not exist in nature and putting it in food.

And that’s precisely the problem.