Earlier this year, Vani Hari, also known as Food Babe, published her book, The Food Babe Way: Break Free from the Hidden Toxins in Your Food and Lose Weight, Look Years Younger, and Get Healthy in Just 21 Days. In this post, we’ll explore several of the inaccurate claims made in the book related to GMOs and provide expert perspectives on these topics.
Claim: "In 1996, Monsanto obtained a patent for a type of corn seed that is injected with genes drawn from bacteria to create a pesticide called Bt toxin within the corn. When insects eat this corn, their stomachs explode and they die."
Clarification: Images of hypodermic needles sticking out of produce are all too common online, but GM seeds are not “injected” with genes
BASF associate scientist Patrick Walker explains some of the methods for producing GM seeds in this post about how GMOs are made:
“The most common methodology for producing a genetically modified plant is to place plant cells in a container with a naturally occurring soil-born bacterium known as Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This species of bacteria is capable of taking up foreign genes, such as our drought-resistant genes, by simply placing DNA that contains our desired gene(s) in the Agrobacterium. We then sterilize and isolate specific cells from our corn, and place the plant cells in a container with the Agrobacterium under sterile conditions. The Agrobacterium then acts as it would in nature to transfer these ‘drought genes’ into our corn cells. Once the drought genes enter the plant cells, they are incorporated into the genome just as the genes would if two corn plants were pollinated using traditional breeding techniques. Once the Agrobacterium has transferred the desirable genes into the corn cells, we then need to be able to grow those cells into a plant.”
Want to learn more about how a GMO goes from trait to plant? Follow the lifecycle of a GMO in this infographic.
You can also listen to University of Florida professor and horticultural sciences chairman Dr. Kevin Folta explain in detail how genes are transferred when developing a GM plant in this video presentation.
Clarification: Another misconception is that the Bt protein causes insects’ stomachs to “explode,” with some people inferring there may be potential risk to humans too. Dr. Folta illustrates how Bt actually works in this visual, showing that Bt proteins create pores in the gut of a target insect, disrupting its integrity, and thereby helping farmers safely eradicate this costly pest and ensure their crops’ yield.
Andrew Kniss, associate professor of weed ecology and management at the University of Wyoming, explains further:
“The nice thing about Bt proteins is that they are very specific about the types of organisms they are toxic to. The crops have been engineered to produce a Bt protein that is toxic only to certain types of insect pests (usually Coleoptera and Lepidoptera) that feed on the plants. This greatly reduces non-target impacts by exposing only insect pests that feed on the crop.”
Finally, Dr. Nicholas Storer, global leader for scientific affairs at Dow AgroSciences, confirms that Bt proteins are safe for humans. Because Bt affects only specific insects that are susceptible to the protein, humans, animals and many other insects (like bees, butterflies, earthworms, etc.) that do not have particular gut receptors that make them susceptible to the protein can safely consume foods from Bt crops without any negative effects.
Did You Know: Organic farmers have safely used Bt as a pesticide on their crops for over 50 years.
Additionally, this chapter references two studies related to potential health impacts of GMOs and related pesticides, though both studies have been discredited.
The first study claims that traces of herbicides or Bt protein were detected in the blood of Canadian women and in umbilical cords. Dr. David Tribe, Senior Lecturer, Agriculture and Food Systems/Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, reviewed this study and points out the following issues:
- "A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety.”
- “The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the [Cry1Ab] protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.”
- Surprisingly, the authors do not consider that the origin of Cry1Ab could be food from organic farming (which sprays Cry1Ab, or bacteria producing it, on fruit or vegetable crops) or from its use in gardening (CryA1b is part of available “natural insecticide” formulations).
Read a more in-depth analysis of this study on reported bioaccumulation of Bt proteins here on GMOAnswers.com.
The other study referenced in the book, “by the University of Caen, France, published in 2013 in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, found that Bt toxin showed toxic effects on human kidney cells.”
This study is associated with Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, a scientist whose research on GM crops and associated herbicides and insecticides has been widely disputed by the scientific community, his most infamous study being retracted by the journal that published it. This particular study was included on Dr. Mercola’s website, but the experimental design and results have been criticized. Snopes has even discredited the Séralini study, and you can read more about this topic at Academics Review.
In this Food, Think! Forum post, the writer recounts a conversation with entomologist Dr. Tom Hunt:
“Dr. Hunt believes that the study Dr. Mercola references was pretty weak because of the extremely high dosage and also the exposure method in the lab. The dosage was equal to what a human diet of pure corn leaves would be, but even if a desperate vegetarian became lost and hungry in an earless cornfield, that dosage of Bt would never reach the kidneys. Dr. Hunt questioned why the response of kidney cells and not intestinal cells was observed. In vivo, human kidneys are unlikely to come into contact with Bt proteins.”
Claim: "The government has allowed the introduction of GMOs into the food supply without any required safety assessments."
Clarification: Before a GM crop can come to market, it must undergo extensive testing and review. GM crops must be shown to be “substantially equivalent” to non-gm crops, meaning that the GM plant is, in essence, no different from a non-GM plant (with the knowledge that the non-GM plant has an established history of safe consumption). The GM crop must also be tested to ensure it does not introduce any new allergens.
On average, it takes a GM crop 13 years and $130 million in R&D before coming to market. This infographic explains GMO regulation and shows the research and review it takes bring a GMO to market.
While FDA review in the United States is voluntary, Steve Savage points out that, “this sort of data has been provided and reviewed for every biotech trait that has been commercialized in the US.” Additionally, GM crops on the market have gone through all required regulatory approval processes in all countries where they are grown or used. In the U.S. alone:
- USDA conducts a mandatory review of GM plants to assess whether or not they will impact the environment and will be safe to grow.
- EPA conducts a mandatory review of GM plants that are insect resistant, disease resistant or herbicide tolerant to assess whether or not they will impact the environment. The EPA also regulates the use of all crop protection products that control weeds and provide protection against insects and disease that are used on crops grown in the U.S.
- FDA conducts a voluntary review to assess if GM plants are safe to eat. All GMOs on the market have gone through this process.
Claim: "A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a plant or animal that has had DNA genes from another organism artificially forced into its own DNA. These foreign genes are extracted from bacteria, viruses, insects, and animals."
Clarification: It’s a common misconception that animal DNA is in GM crops. There aren’t any GM crops with “animal DNA” in them, and rumors about this have come from confusion between an experiment in a lab and the short-lived Flavr Savr tomato, which was last commercially available in the late 90s. The Flavr Savr did not make use of any fish or animal DNA, and the experimental tomato was never brought to market. To date, no GM crop uses DNA from animal sources.
However, it is important to note, as Fran Castle with BASF points out, that animals and plants share a tremendous amount of genes…up to 60 percent! She also explains that all DNA, from any source, is made up of the same four basic nucleotide building blocks. She elaborates:
“So DNA that comes from a plant or a microbe has the same four nucleotides as the DNA in animals. When any DNA is ingested, it is broken down into these nucleotides, which are further broken down and absorbed or excreted. “
Claim: "The goal of mixing genes of different species is to create greater crop yields and increase pest resistance. With little understanding of how these alterations might adversely affect our health or the environment, the Big Ag industry has plowed ahead quickly in introducing these foods to the public."
Clarification: In fact, most GM crop traits are intended to protect crop yields from various types of damage, not necessarily to increase them, and many of the crop plants that are currently commercially available as GM varieties do include traits for insect resistance, herbicide resistance and disease resistance. But, GM crops can accomplish much more than this, including crops that provide enhanced nutrition or are drought resistant. Learn about various GM traits, what they do, and in which crops they’re present in this infographic.
To correct the idea that GM crops are “plowed ahead quickly” for introduction, we need only look to the new GM non-browning apple, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits. The Arctic Apple provides one example of the amount of research and testing that new GM crops go through prior to being brought to market. The company states, “Arctic apples have been in development since 1997, when our science team began searching for a genetic solution to apples’ enzymatic browning problem. Our test orchards were planted in 2003 to 2005, allowing plenty of time to observe and evaluate both the trees and their fruit. By the time Arctic apples arrive at market, they will be one of the most studied foods on the planet.”
As mentioned above, the average GM crop take 13 years and $130 million of R&D before coming to market.
Claim: "To date, there have been no long-term independent studies on the safety of GMO exposure to humans . . . Most GMO safety research has been funded by the very biotech companies that create GMOs."
Clarification: Long-term health studies have been conducted on GMOs, and those tests are conducted by both industry experts and independent organizations. This link lists 1,785 GMO safety studies, including long-term studies, many of which you can download. On Biofortified.org, you can research a growing list of independent studies.
Marc Brazeau discusses industry funded GMO studies in this comprehensive post on GMO Building Blocks:
“The point is this. Yes, there are lots of industry funded studies. The majority in fact. But, as I hope that I’ve demonstrated, there is a robust literature of independent studies. How can we judge if the results of the industry funded studies are reliable? Well, one indicator would be if that the independent studies and the industry studies, in the aggregate, come to the same conclusions. When we look, that is in fact, what we find.”
He also provides examples of where and how independent research is conducted and how industry money fits into the larger picture of funding sources. Read his findings at GMO Building Blocks.
In addition, Dr. Xiaohua Yang, postdoctoral research associate at Cornell University discusses the safety testing of GM crops, and explains:
“Before GM crops can be released to the market, they are tested in ways that conventional and organic crops are not. During the development of a new GM seed, safety testing is done largely by certified independent third-party laboratories using protocols required by the government. If a study were ever to yield a result that raised any food safety concern, it is required by law that the information to be presented to the FDA. GM crops are also tested for their safety as feed and in the environment and regulated by authorities, such as USDA and EPA.”
Claim: "Studies in which animals were fed genetically modified corn have shown that GMOs cause a slew of liver disorders (for example, atrophied livers and altered liver cells) and several reproductive problems (infant mortality, altered sperm cells, infertility).”
Clarification: As reported in this article, Forbes contributor Jon Entine notes that many “’one-off’ studies of lab animals have occasionally shown some problems.”
He goes on to explain that with 70 to 90 percent of crop biomass from genetically engineered crops globally is consumed by food-producing animals,
“…[e]stimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.”
In addition to anecdotal evidence, scientific data confirms the safety of livestock feed derived from GM crops for animal health. A meta-analysis covering more than 30 years, and including data sets from more than 100 billion animals, does not indicate any negative effects on livestock health and productivity from feed derived from GM crops. This study, conducted by Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam Amy Young at the University of California, Davis, is open access and available online here.
Claim: "Roundup is used to selectively kill weeds while allowing genetically modified versions of sugarcane, corn, soy and wheat crops to thrive. The dominant ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate . . . scientists have linked exposure to glyphosate to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility and cancer. . . Glyphosate is an endocrine disrupter..."
Clarification: First, it’s important to note that there are no genetically modified versions of sugarcane or wheat commercially available in the US. The only GM crops currently on the U.S. market are: corn, cotton, canola, alfalfa, soy, sugar beets, papaya and some types of squash. Non-browning GM apples and potatoes have been approved by US regulatory agencies and will be coming to market in the future.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a common herbicide that is formulated for residential and agricultural use, including with some herbicide resistant crops. Dr. Kevin Folta discusses how glyphosate is applied to plants in an agricultural setting in this response, and notes that “glyphosate is amazingly non-toxic to humans or any other animals.”
Additionally, sixth-generation farmer Lawson Mozley explains how Roundup Ready crops work:
“Roundup Ready crop does not contain or produce glyphosate. Most plants have what is called an EPSPS enzyme (humans and animals do not have this enzyme, so it doesn’t affect us!). Glyphosate affects this enzyme and keeps the plant from being able to survive. Roundup Ready crops have a trait that essentially "turns off" glyphosate's ability to affect this enzyme, so when glyphosate is applied to Roundup Ready crops, they don't die like normal weeds. “
Farmer Allen Boyd explains at the 1:25 minute mark of this interview on CBS Florida the benefits Roundup Ready/herbicide resistant GM crops provide farmers.
Many additional resources related to glyphosate toxicity and safety can be found on GMO Answers:
- Does Glyphosate Cause Celiac Disease? Actually, No! by Dr. Peter Olins, co-founder of UltimateGlutenFree.com
- Steve Savage Addresses Samsel and Seneff study, “Glyphosate, pathways to modern dieseases II: Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance” by Dr. Steve Savage
- Glyphosate as a Carcinogen, Explained by Amanda Zaluckyj, from FarmersDaughterUSA.com
- What can we say about exposure to glyphosate? by Michael Greenberg, MD
- How does the GMO-friendly scientific community respond to the potential connection between increased glyphosate use and autism prevalence? Answered by Dr. Andrew Kniss
- How can you say that they are safe when recent studies (not conducted by Monsanto) show a direct link to breast cancer from glyphosate? Answered by Dr. John Swartout
Claim: "Extreme levels" of pesticides are contributing to the development of superweeds.
Clarification: “Superweeds” is a term used by many to describe herbicide-resistant weeds – weeds that have become tolerant to a certain herbicide. The Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) states, “There are well over 400 different herbicide-resistant weeds, and the majority have nothing to do with GE crops or the herbicides used with them.”
Weed resistance is a crop management problem that farmers face every day. WSSA developed this fact sheet that addresses several misconceptions about superweeds, and the use of GM crops and herbicides, and points out that “weeds have exhibited resistance to many types of herbicides over the past 40 years.”
Also, Rob Wager from Vancouver Island University addresses herbicide-resistant weeds in this response, explaining:
“Resistance is a universal phenomenon. Herbicide resistance is also as old as plants. Most people are unaware of the vast number of natural herbicidal compounds plants make. Thousands of different herbicides are found in nature, as plants are always competing for space with each other.”
He continues, to add:
“Herbicide-resistant weeds are not ‘superweeds,’ as many like to say. These glyphosate-resistant weeds are mostly sensitive to other herbicides already on the market. Still, the increased number of glyphosate-resistant weeds is definitely associated with less-than-adequate integrated pest-management practices by farmers who have overused glyphosate-tolerant GM crops. If farmers want to continue to use the relatively mild herbicide glyphosate … they will have to significantly improve their stewardship with respect to herbicide choices and rotations.”
Finally, Dr. Andrew Kniss provides more information on “superweeds” in this blog post, “Superweeds a Mutating Problem” at Weed Control Freaks.
If you have any additional questions about claims about GMOs made in this book, please ask!