GMOs vs Organics: A Look Under The Label
No buzzword resonates as strongly with the health-conscious crowd quite like “organic.” Milk, produce, cereal, wine, and even organic soaps, pillowcases and cosmetics have adopted that label to invoke a more sustainable and health-friendly marketing tone. According to the Organic Trade Association, the U.S. market for organic products had a record year in 2018 with organic sales of both food and non-food items rising 6.3% to $52.5 billion. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) refers to produce as being organic if, “it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest.” This distinction not only includes the prohibition of potassium chloride and arsenic, but also that of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in organic products. This means an organic farmer cannot plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soap producer is unable to use any GMO ingredients.
People have every right to have concerns over what they put into (or onto) their bodies. GMOs developed for pesticide, herbicide, or viral resistance feed into the fears that altering the genetic components of agricultural products negatively impact our health and environments, and that organic products can provide consumers refuge from that unknown. Even so, just because something isn’t organic, doesn’t mean it’s been necessarily genetically modified. GMOs often do provide positive benefits, especially in malnourished developing countries where yields can be affected. Contrarily, organic food labels are often undeservedly given the impression of halo effect when many of these foods are not as pious as the general public may think.
The GMO’s M.O.
To create a genetically modified organism, scientists identify the genes responsible for desired traits, such as resistance to droughts and insects, which are then cut and transferred to create a more formidable food. For example, tomato plants are highly susceptible to hungry beetles, so the plant is often injected with a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that possesses a protein poisonous to certain bugs. In 2018, 94% of the United States soy acreage and 95% of canola acreage in the U.S. contained GMOs to be herbicide-tolerant - allowing plants to grow even in the presence of glyphosate, also known as Roundup weed killer.
Once canola seeds are processed to extract their oil, they are then added to animal feed along with high-protein soy beans and other modified crops, which may be passed on to humans through animal derivative products. Corn is the most diversified plant species of all, with over 142 types of genetically modified corn crops. 90% of corn grown in the United States ends up in animal feed, with the remaining 10% ending up as a primary ingredient in products such as high-fructose corn syrup or corn starch and as source material for products such as alcohol or citric acid.
One of the most common reasons that farmers and producers genetically modify their foods is to reduce costs and streamline production by making their crops tolerant to specific herbicides. This application has caused environmental concerns among industry experts, who view the use of GMOs that resist herbicides such as Roundup as damaging to soil health, plant fertility and animals who may not be able to absorb necessary micronutrients from soil treated with herbicides. The practice does not benefit consumers as much as it does the producers, at least in the developed world. However, in the developing world the use of herbicide-resistant GMOs provides a socioeconomic advantage. According to Dr. Evanega, women and children in developing countries are largely responsible for weeding. So, by growing crops that can tolerate herbicide applications, it frees up time to attend school and to earn an income outside of the field for their families.
GMOs can make crops that are resistant to viruses and insects for more effective pest control. The trade-off being that producing virus or insect resistant crops can decrease the use of synthetic pesticides. Through improving crop yield by making crops more resistant to pests, this application of genetic modification can support nations by satisfying food demands and decreasing the cost of production. However, neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter argues that genetic modification of foods to become insect-resistant increases the use of insecticides, which presents a disruption to ecosystems through contamination of water and food supplies.
Outside of improving crop yield for economic gain, there is a burgeoning application of GMOs to mitigate nutrient deficiencies in developing nations. The USDA recognizes that "advances in biotechnology may provide consumers with foods that are nutritionally-enriched." GMO foods have been fortified with vitamins and minerals to create more nutrient-dense foods and help prevent malnutrition among consumers, as seen with the recent genetic modifications to golden rice and cassava have been performed to produce Vitamin A-enriched products that prevent deficiencies in third-world countries.
A Totally Organic Experience
Demand for organic food in the United States has risen exponentially over the last four decades, starting with the evolution of the 'go green' movement in the 1970s that sparked innovation in the agricultural industry and the demand for organic food. The “Organic trail” from hippie hubbub to mealy mainstay culminated in 2002 when the USDA created the National Organic Standards we use today. 5.7% of overall U.S. food sales in 2018 were from organic foods, having risen 5.9% within the same year to reach $47.9 billion.
While terms such as 'Wild-caught' and 'grass-fed' are commonly used to label food, this does not mean the foods are organic, as their farming might not have adhered to the outlined standards. For meat to be considered organic, animals must have been raised in living conditions that accommodate their natural behaviors (like the ability to graze on pasture), fed 100% organic feed and forage, and not have been administered antibiotics or hormones. Processed and multi-ingredient foods may also be organic as long as they do not contain artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors with some minor exceptions.
According to the USDA, “certified organic food must be produced without the use of conventional pesticides, petroleum- or sewage-based fertilizers, herbicides, genetic engineering, antibiotics, growth hormones or irradiation.” To ensure the crops they're growing are organic, farmers who own certified organic farms do not treat their land with any prohibited substances for at least three years prior to harvest. They also have to attain a given threshold for gross annual organic sales and adhere to a set of animal health and welfare standards.
This means the farm can only get organic certification if the land has been chemical-free and free of synthetic fertilizers for three years. The question remains if chemicals were used prior to the three years organic wait period, is the health impact any different?
The Bottom of the Supply Chain
Both organic and genetically-modified food supply chain processes follow the same basic outline: farmers or producers, processors, then retail stores. The processes differ based on important regulations and restrictions on organic farmers and food processors, as well as supply issues to organic processors. As a result, organic farming is more expensive because of restrictions on pesticides, types of fertilizers, and a variety of other farming practices that must be met. It’s also riskier for farmers because pests can more easily wipe out crops and therefore, profits, given the restrictions on organic farming practices. The average cost for a farmer’s organic certification is about $700 for farmers.
These fees, however, do not include the cost of inspections, or the travel of an agent to a processing plant or farm. The average cost for a processor’s organic certification is $1200, but this doesn't include a host of other costs that may be ordered by a certification agent or borne by the processor to bring the agent to the crops. Due to the smaller number of organic farms and the smaller yields they produce, organic food processors often have to use multiple suppliers for organic raw ingredients. This too can drive up the cost of organic foods, because processors can’t achieve efficiencies by working with fewer suppliers.
It should serve as no surprise that organic food is a bit pricer than conventionally grown food because of regulatory costs, growing demand, shorter shelf-life, and a small supply. But how much exactly? Let’s use the grocery list of your typical family barbecue as an example.
Around 48% of consumers say they found an 'organic' label to be appealing to them, but only 23% of them are willing to pay the steeper price. Interestingly, organic products are more appealing to younger, more cost-sensitive consumers between the ages of 18 and 29 by a factor of 54%. Only 37% of those over the age of 65, who tend to have more a bit more spending money, say it matters to them.
Outside of cost however, most consumers prefer their food to actually taste good. However, based on the many studies examining taste differences and nutritional content of organic versus conventional produce, studies from both the University of Illinois and Universiteit Leiden show the forbidden fruit may not taste much sweeter than its organic alternative. There is no substantial evidence to suggest consumers can tell the difference through double blind taste tests.
Just for the Health of It
Genetic modification is a relatively new scientific field, and hence, its long-term effects on our health are still largely unknown. As a result, GMO foods are heavily regulated or banned in some countries. When food with no label showing GMO content was shown to consumers, only 31% of consumers had concerns about health. However, when a label showing GMO content was presented to consumers, 51% of them had health-related concerns. Around 85% of those who avoid them do so based on health concerns, while 43% do so based on environmental concerns.
Organic products have been found to have about 50% more omega-3 fatty acids than regular products and some organic foods, such as onions, have been found to have higher antioxidant content. Adults who frequently eat organic food have a lower risk of obesity, although its not yet known whether this is because of actual nutritional content, smaller portion sizes, or simply that those who seek out organic alternatives already tend to engage in a healthier lifestyle and are less likely to consume heavily processed foods like corn syrup, which is made from genetically-modified corn.
According to the American Cancer Society, there is no evidence to support the idea that GMOs cause cancer and, in fact, some organic foods (wheat, for example) are actually less nutritious than their GMO counterparts. Organic produce also has a higher chance of allergens because they haven't been modified to remove them. The health effects of GMO products show that not every GMO apple is necessarily a bad one, as long you’re making fruit a viable part of your diet in the first place.
Snack to the Future
Since the inception of lab-grown, plant-based meat alternatives, the line between organic and genetically-modified foods continues to blur as the planet seeks new practices of environmentally sustainable consumption. Plant-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are essentially making processed foods, but their marketing is more in line with natural and organic offerings. As consumers seek new protein alternatives with the official organic label attached, protein-rich algae seeks to be the next step key ingredient for food as the population expands.
Originally recognized as a food supplement, algae is now recognized as a crop in the United States and those producing it will become eligible for federal support. Triton has developed non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) red algae to be used as a meat replacement and Corbion already has plans with Nestle to develop a variety of next-generation algae products.
Field hand working in an algae farm
In 2017, the first genetically-modified salmon was sold in Canada as regulations open up to turning Mary Shelley’s fiction into sustainable food. It was produced by U.S.-based AquaBounty and was genetically modified to grow faster than non-GM salmon. According to Scientific American, "the sale marks the first time that a genetically engineered animal has been sold for food on the open market." It took AquaBounty over 25 years to be able to bring the GM salmon product to market. Selling genetically modified animals requires company. It appears that AquaBounty is not the only organization currently experimenting with the production of modified animal products. For example, the FDA recently reviewed genome sequences of a breed of GM cows, and other scientific studies have been carried out in the realm of GM rabbits and pigs. This trend appears to be spurred largely by a "growing scientific consensus that [humans] must rapidly transition to sustainable and ecological farming systems to avoid both climate catastrophe and ecological collapse."
According to insights published by the University of Connecticut, the next generation of GMO plants (the second generation) is reflecting a "shift in focus from the initial goals of the biotechnology industry," as this new wave will focus more on "improvements and modifications in quality factors of the crop plants." In the United States, first generations of GMO crops were designed with the intention of reaping financial benefits for biotechnology companies (i.e. the producers of GMO seeds) and farmers. These seeds/crops "either have lower production costs or can be expected to have higher yields under various stresses.”
One example is alfalfa that has been genetically modified to provide"improved digestibility for animals." Other GMO plant quality factors currently being researched are increased resistance(for diseases that attack the plant, not the consumer). For example, the USDA recently approved GMO potato varieties that have an increased resistance to a fungal disease that caused a widespread potato famine in Europe in the 19th century. Based on the current scientific research underway and first rounds of regulatory approvals, one may make the logical assumption that there will be an increasingly rapid trend of these second generation GMO crops hitting the market over the next 7-10 years. With GMOs not seeming to go away anytime soon, perhaps it's time to turn and face the strange.