# Are there any current studies that show that GMOs are harmful? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 3, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442 "2011-10-03T16:09:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/21 "2011-10-04T09:11:50Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > /Terminator\_seeds"]terminator seeds generally benefit the big corporations more than poor farmers and Roundup-ready crops can increase reliance on imported pesticides at the expense of sacrificing farmers’ future self-determination. And yet if you read the recent GD thread on this topic, you will note that anti-GM Luddites such as **griffin1977** were demanding that the Terminator gene be used in all GM crops, and that Monsanto’s refusal to do was destroying farmers’ future self-determination. I kid you not, that was exactly his contention. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t it would seem. > [@](#): > > Insofar as GMO crops encourage/enable modern industrial farming practices (heavy fertilizers, pesticides, monocrops, almost completely externalized inputs), they decrease biodiversity and could _potentially_ harm the environment through habitat loss, runoff pollution, decreased resistance to disease, and increased reliance on fossil fuels. Insofar as GMOs encourage/enable modern industrial farming practices (less fertiliser use fertilizers, fewer or no pesticides, increased benefit from internal inputs, increased yield, zero-till cultivation), they increase biodiversity and indisputably aid the environment through habitat conservation, runoff prevention, increased resistance to disease, and decreased reliance on fossil fuels. While there are two sides to the argument, only the positive effects of zero-till cultivation, increased yield and reduced fertiliser and pesticide use have been definitively established. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/22 "2011-10-04T17:04:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > And yet if you read the recent GD thread on this topic, you will note that anti-GM Luddites such as **griffin1977** were demanding that the Terminator gene be used in all GM crops, and that Monsanto’s refusal to do was destroying farmers’ future self-determination. I kid you not, that was exactly his contention. > > Damned if they do, damned if they don’t it would seem. Aren’t you missing the “don’t use GM crops” alternative? > [@](#): > > Insofar as GMOs encourage/enable modern industrial farming practices (less fertiliser use fertilizers, fewer or no pesticides, increased benefit from internal inputs, increased yield, zero-till cultivation), they increase biodiversity and indisputably aid the environment through habitat conservation, runoff prevention, increased resistance to disease, and decreased reliance on fossil fuels. > > While there are two sides to the argument, only the positive effects of zero-till cultivation, increased yield and reduced fertiliser and pesticide use have been definitively established. I’m not really sure what you mean. Can you explain? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/23 "2011-10-04T17:34:13Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > You have ignored the risks inherent in polysyllabicism. As far as I can tell, the more syllables something has the more dangerous it is. Or maybe it’s just that the more dangerous you want something to sound the more syllables you use to describe it. Actually, IME most Dopers have no problem coping with adult dosage levels of polysyllabicism and don’t find long words intimidating. But if anyone needs a particular post rephrased at the children’s dosage level, they should feel free to request it. > [@Blake](#): > > The worst environmental effect that I have seen is that some non-target insects have been harmed from eating crop trash within a GM field. Cross-fertilization of GMOs with related weed species—as well as [plain old evolutionary adaptation by regular weeds to herbicides used on GM herbicide-tolerant crops](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all)—to produce so-called “superweeds” with greatly increased herbicide resistance looks like a more potentially damaging effect than dangers to non-target insects. Of course, “superweeds” in themselves aren’t doing any harm to the environment or producing any toxins. The potential hazard they pose is the use of more damaging herbicides by farmers trying to eradicate them. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/24 "2011-10-04T17:42:09Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Neither of which are \*harmful \*of course. So I can’t quite see the relevance to this thread. LOL yes. What could possibly be harmful about genes from a bacteria that produce resistance to an important weed killer spreading in the wild plant population. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Vihaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Vihaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vihaga)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/25 "2011-10-04T17:49:03Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Inserting a resistance to pesticide in a crop, for example - if that gene manages to get into other plants… not as likely as messing with bacteria, which should be definitely forbidden except in extreme lab situations. Wait, what? You do realize that a huge, huge number of scientific studies involve doing exactly this: modifying bacteria to express resistance genes. It’s routine. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/26 "2011-10-04T22:58:00Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > LOL yes. What could possibly be harmful about genes from a bacteria that produce resistance to an important weed killer spreading in the wild plant population. :rolleyes: One could argue that perhaps we should look for solutions that don’t involve dumping tons of “an important weed killer” into our collective waterways each year. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/27 "2011-10-04T23:58:00Z")
The pesticide argument goes thusly: Currently, when we want to control pests with chemicals, we spray shitloads of the chemical onto the crops. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of these chemicals make it into the interior of the target pest organisms. The vast majority ends up on the food, or other parts of the plants, on the dirt, or washed into the local water supply. With a GM crop plant, the pesticide can be engineered to be created only when the plant is under attack. Thus, when an insect bites into a leaf, that leaf responds by making some pesticide - a tiny fraction of a percentage of the amount we now use. That pesticide makes it into the bug in question, it dies. Now, one predicted problem is that if those genes escape into wild relatives of those plants, or into other fields of non-GM crop plants, thus increasing the selective pressure on the pest bugs, encouraging the development of pesticide resistance, thus making the pesticide useless sooner than it would have been. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/28 "2011-10-05T00:47:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > All food crops are alien to the environment. > > Are you proposing to outlaw agriculture on the grounds that it is dangerous? > > Or perhaps you are a moderate Luddite who only wants to ban the growing of exotic food cultivars. People in North America can grow teosinte or dune daisies to their hearts content, but no maize or sunflower, and certainly no alien species such as wheat or potatoes. > > This argument against introducing alien species always makes me giggle. \*All \*our food comes from alien species. No, our crops were native species somewhere at one time. They have evolved in lockstep with the evironmental factors that control them since 10,000BC and earlier. When we brought over wheat to North America, for example, we also thoughtfully brought the insects and rats that kept it in check. The maize eveolved by the cultivation by the southwest and Mexican Indians also evolved in generations with its parasites, insects and other control factors. As an example of exactly what you are being condescending about, the Irish potato blight famine - an alien crop introduced, a fairly monocultured crop unchallenged by traditional controls, suddenly comes in contact with a blight (literally) that destroyed much of the fabric of a nation and created one of the major migrations of out time, matched perhaps only by the effect of sheep in Scotland… 🙂 Baaa… Similarly, we have salmon, some genetically modified to grow at an excess rate, being grown in fish farms on the west coast. Guaranteed some will escape into the wild, or their genes will. Could faster-growing, semi-alien salmon displace much of the native west coast salmon stocks, already under stress? hen, when they have their “potato blight moment”, will we fondly remember there used to be salmon on the West Coast? Yes, most crops are alien in some other locations, but as a result we HAVE seen some serious disasters for just that reason - including stupid “oops” moments like the introduction of cows to a continent with no dung beetles… Cattle in North America passing tuberculosis to wild deer and moose, etc. I made some valid points- completely alien plants / animals / microbes, the monoculture problem and the risk of genetic spread; plus the issue that life should not be easily patented. It should not be illegal to breed what you have simply because someone else “owns the rights”. If you can address those issues maybe you can contribute to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![ModernPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@ModernPrimate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ModernPrimate)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/29 "2011-10-05T03:14:35Z")
> [@Vihaga](#): > > Wait, what? You do realize that a huge, huge number of scientific studies involve doing exactly this: modifying bacteria to express resistance genes. It’s routine. Uhhh… there is a huge difference between modifying bacteria to express certain genes more than others and throwing all your dice in and hoping it comes out okay. They already have the genes they are trying to get expressed (not that I think such activities are without risk). I am against GMOs in every way, they could destroy all natural food forever, but I’m not getting involved in this debate as I find them painful and not worth it for me at this time. And yes, agriculture and artificial selection is destroying natural food also, but at a much, much slower pace. It would take millions of years for them to change the way they are genetically modifying them if it were possible at all. But I am against agriculture and artificial selection. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/30 "2011-10-05T03:38:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Subject to correction from **md2000** who was the one who originally made those comparisons, I think that s/he knows that. I think the point s/he was making was just the general observation that a slight tweak to an ecosystem can sometimes result in major knock-on effects. > > No, unwittingly introducing catastrophically invasive species is not the same thing as genetically modifying agricultural organisms with biotechnology, but I think that what **md2000** was trying to say is that both can have unintended and undesirable consequences. Thank you. Someone grasps the concept of comparison and analogy. Zebra mussels and rabbits and poison toads and asian carp and feral cats are just the more interestingly spectacular screw-ups in non-GMO introduction of species without natural controls. At least we know what takes them out, we just have to decide if it’s a good idea to introduce other predators to a fragile ecosystem. (The list of Australian screw-ups is already long). Just because “yeah, Timmy destroyed the ecosystem twice with non-GMO organisms” does not mean Freddy can do whatever the heck he likes with GMO organisms. Any mother will tell you that. The theory is to learn from history or be doomed to repeat it (in summer school). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/31 "2011-10-06T03:16:03Z")
Apropos, the CBC Radio show The Current has an item on superweeds… [http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/10/05/superweeds/](http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/10/05/superweeds/) > [@](#): > > They call them Superweeds choking whole fields of crops resistant to the very chemical that was supposed to kill them. Glyphosate or Roundup-ready crops have been Game Changers over the last few decades propelling Agriculture forward. But now herbicide resistant weeds are changing the game again. Across the U.S., an estimated 11 million acres of crops are infested with Superweeds and they’re showing up in Ontario. I heard the blurb for this but haven’t had a chance to listen… ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/32 "2011-10-06T03:22:19Z")
Basically, you cn’t even raise normal crops any more if you want to, since the weeds are resistant to a much higher level of weedkiller than any non-GMO crop, thanks to all the farmers around you who used that patented GMO crop. That sounds like a definite anti-GMO point. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/33 "2011-10-06T05:32:12Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Basically, you cn’t even raise normal crops any more if you want to, since the weeds are resistant to a much higher level of weedkiller than any non-GMO crop, thanks to all the farmers around you who used that patented GMO crop. > > That sounds like a definite anti-GMO point. The trouble is that there is no indication that there was any transfer of genetic material from the round-up ready crops to the weeds. The weeds just developed a natural immunity to Roundup. You will eventually have the same problem with any weed you try to control with herbicide with or without GMO. We have the same problem with antibiotics without GMOs. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/34 "2011-10-06T12:52:24Z")
Except for wild caught fish and wild picked herbs **everything** we eat is genetically modified. And mostly randomly so, rather than in a targeted way. And all the domesticated plants were never tested for toxicity. Just realize that cabbage, kale, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, and a few other varieties are all the same species and look nothing like sea cabbage (thought to be the wild progenitor) to realize how much more or less random genetic modification has gone on in the last several thousand years. I see absolutely no reason to fear GM foods. I do, however, fear Monsanto’s “ownership” of the seeds. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/35 "2011-10-06T13:04:51Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The difference is strip malls don’t breed. The current plethora of strip malls in America wasn’t the result a single breeding pair of strip malls that was introduced in the 1800s. Funny, but actually on-point. Charles Perrow, the father of Normal Accident Theory, regards systems in which consequences cascade geometrically as the riskiest. The two he singled out as of most concern are nuclear (because of chain reactions) and genetic manipulation (because organisms have the potential to breed in a chain-reaction-like geometric rate). ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/36 "2011-10-06T13:28:02Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The trouble is that there is no indication that there was any transfer of genetic material from the round-up ready crops to the weeds. The weeds just developed a natural immunity to Roundup. You will eventually have the same problem with any weed you try to control with herbicide with or without GMO. We have the same problem with antibiotics without GMOs. The real problems are indirectly attributed to GMO. First, they could use heavier quantities of Roundup because the crop was more resistant; secondly they practised no-till farming, as these GMO crops were intended, thus not ploughing under weeds exposed to the herbicide, failing to break the development cycle of roundup resistance. It’s not genetic transfer, it’s the law of unintended consequences. And by geometrical progression, these results are spreading to farmers who did not use the GMO crops. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Except for wild caught fish and wild picked herbs **everything** we eat is genetically modified. And mostly randomly so, rather than in a targeted way. And all the domesticated plants were never tested for toxicity. Just realize that cabbage, kale, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, and a few other varieties are all the same species and look nothing like sea cabbage (thought to be the wild progenitor) to realize how much more or less random genetic modification has gone on in the last several thousand years. I see absolutely no reason to fear GM foods. I do, however, fear Monsanto’s “ownership” of the seeds. As I said, crops developed by humans (unnatural selection? Intelligent design?) evolved in step with their natural predators, diseases, and other controls, one random but selected genetic change at a time. Not tested for toxicity? What do you think 10,000 years of farmers, plus the absinthe drinkers of Paris, were doing? They just spared the lives of millions of lab rats. The problem with GMO is that we have to tread very very very carefully. There are stupid unanticipated(?) results like accelerating the development of resistant weeds. There could be bigger problems. Even I don’t believe “toxic to humans” is a result of a crop modification. The problem is that we introduce a huge change in the genetic makeup of an organism so quickly that its natural predators are no longer capable of containing it. (In some cases, that’s the goal). Also, the labs of Monsanto probably chage a few dozen seeds, then these dozen go on to be the source for a continent or two of crops - a pretty definite case of monoculture, a severe lack of the genetic diversity that allows many species to resist new threats. ---
**Author:** ![Lestrade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Lestrade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lestrade)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/37 "2011-10-06T17:16:14Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > The real problems are indirectly attributed to GMO. First, they could use heavier quantities of Roundup because the crop was more resistant; secondly they practised no-till farming, as these GMO crops were intended, thus not ploughing under weeds exposed to the herbicide, failing to break the development cycle of roundup resistance. It’s not genetic transfer, it’s the law of unintended consequences. And by geometrical progression, these results are spreading to farmers who did not use the GMO crops. I think the term you’re looking for is [artificial selection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection). Is no-till farming really more likely to develop resistant weeds? I’ve never heard that before. I don’t understand how it would work, could you explain it a bit more? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/38 "2011-10-06T18:23:02Z")
The problem is that even using tilling has consequences. We have evolved weeds that are resistant to tilling. [http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/invasion-of-the-superweeds/#blake](http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/invasion-of-the-superweeds/#blake) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/39 "2011-10-06T19:20:43Z")
> [@Lestrade](#): > > I think the term you’re looking for is [artificial selection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection). > > Is no-till farming really more likely to develop resistant weeds? I’ve never heard that before. I don’t understand how it would work, could you explain it a bit more? The CBC article says that the superweeds are resistant to herbicides, so the only way to get rid of them is to plough them under. Presumably with no-till, the weeds were left to finish their lifecycle to seed; with tilling, they often were ploughed under and chopped up before they could propagate. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442/40 "2011-10-06T20:28:24Z")
This is a very stimulating thread. Thanks, folks. **md2000** and **Lestrade,** my memory reaches back to the development of no-till (and limited-till) farming, with some degree of accuracy. 🙂 It was a trade-off from the beginning. You could cut down on the number of fuel-thirsty passes through each field, but to do it, you needed to increase your use of herbicides. So, new planting machines were designed to plant seeds in a field that hadn’t been plowed and disced. Limited-till was similar, but you made a pass with a shallow _sweep plow_ just deep enough to cut the roots off the weeds and last year’s crop. Still, lots of herbicide. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-current-studies-that-show-that-gmos-are-harmful/598442.md?page=3)