Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have touched off much debate in the agricultural and environmental sectors.  Vocal opponents of this technology believe it poses dire threats to the environment.  Where these opponents are successful in scaring producers away from GMO crops, industry, rural communities and the environment suffer.

In August, Bayer CropScience AG announced that small amounts of an experimental genetically engineered rice had been found in U.S. commercial rice supplies, even though the company stopped testing the strain in 2001 — indicating that the strain had escaped, and is now being unwittingly grown in production fields. Both the company and federal officials have noted that the strain, bred for resistant to a particular type of herbicide, poses no health threat, and that two other rice strains with the same gene are already approved for commercialization in the United States.

Predictably, GMO-phobic markets like Japan and the E.U. threatened to ban all American rice.  In fact, Japan did ban all varieties of long-grain rice (though the majority of U.S. rice imported to Japan is short- and medium-grain).  In October, citing discovery of this gene in American rice samples sold in several other countries including Germany and India, Greenpeace International called for a complete ban on genetically engineered crops, claiming that they represent nothing short of “economic and environmental disaster.”  Greenpeace and similar organizations are aggressively propagating hysteria about the environmental impacts of genetically engineered products.

Genetic modification involves isolating particular DNA with some desirable function and introducing those genes into organisms without that trait. Desirable traits include protein creation for pharmaceutical production, pest resistance in crops, and improved nutritional value of food products.  Traditional plant breeding essentially follows the same process, but over a much longer time because it is limited by natural growth rates and reproductive processes. The results are less precise because gene transfer in wholly “natural” breeding can be difficult to limit to individual genes. 

Rather than an “environmental disaster,” genetically engineered crops offer numerous possibilities for improving environmental quality.  Use of these crops in the U.S. has decreased the use of pesticides, since genes creating proteins that are toxic to particularly damaging insects have been added to large-scale production crops like cotton and corn.  Disease-resistant strains of some crops can also inhibit the growth of toxic fungi, for example, limiting the presence of these hazards in the environment. 

Transgenic crops can also have health benefits, when modified genes improve the nutritional value or when genes are added to create pharmaceutical products that combat disease.  And particularly in developing nations, genetically engineered crops can combat poverty by improving yields, decreasing needs for costly inputs, increasing shelf life, and improving tolerance to weather and soil stresses.

Certainly there are some valid concerns with genetically engineered organisms.  The unintended transfer of engineered genes to other varieties or even species is possible, and non-target effects can be difficult to predict.  That is why the National Academies noted in their 2000 report that while genetically engineered organisms offer significant potential, “a careful approach is warranted.” 

SunWest Foods, Inc., California’s largest rice miller, has called for legislation banning genetically engineered rice in California.  This attitude, generated out of frustration, ignores the myriad benefits of genetically engineered organisms.  At the same time, due to the misguided demand for GMO-free food, companies wishing to grow and research GMO products should continue to invest in improved containment and monitoring infrastructure.  They should also continue to participate in the public dialogued so that demand can be based on informed analysis rather than hysterics.