Evolution, a theory proposed by Charles Darwin in the late 1850s, coupled with time has created the possibility of a widespread plague with projected deaths upwards of ten million by 2050 (Sandoiu, 2018). These figures stem from the rampant pesticide use which has created superweeds and superpests. These pests are highly communicable, and have become resistant to modern medicine. 
<img src="https://source.unsplash.com/VMKBFR6r_jg/1600x900" alt="">
The natural evolving of a species occurs because of natural selection. Microevolution is a minor change in a species' offspring (Than, 2018), such as the ability to resist certain pesticides (Bradshaw, &amp; Holzapfel, 2001). Therefore, after spraying uncontrolled amounts of pesticides for nearly the past century, the weeds and pests have become tolerant and pose a grave threat to human health. The recent cases of resistant pests are growing slowly but surely.
For example, the Candida auris (C. auris) fungus which affects the immunocompromised. In 2018, C. auris, despite killing a man in a Brooklyn hospital, was far from dead. The hospital staff explained that the fungus was ubiquitous even after using fungicides. That hospital room needed to be fully cleansed, including the replacement of the ceiling and floor tiles (Wilson, 2019). 
A similar concept, but with the potential to trigger more grim human health ramifications, arises from industrial livestock. The most common drug issued is antibiotics to, in theory, take proactive measures before there is a patient zero (an unknown carrier of a bacterial infection).
<img src="https://source.unsplash.com/u4Ln2-ULLiU/1600x900" alt="">
However, lucrative farm owners insert antibiotics into livestock to gain heftier and thereby more profitable animals. This leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can transmit from animal-to-human (Sandoiu, 2018), and can create incurable disease as antibiotics are used to treat ailments of the human body. This is of particular concern right now, seeing as there is an Ebola epidemic in the DRC, which was initially spread from fruit bats.
Furthermore, the residue of antibiotics in meat provides more exposure to antibiotics and can lead to human antibiotic tolerance (Akimoladun, &amp; Falowo, 2019), and therefore, more pesticide-borne deaths.

Organic Plants and Superweeds

## Introduction
Few issues in the scientific community have been as brazen and polarized as the debate between GMOs and Organics. They've both had fierce competition, had organizations root for them, and deliver powerful ideologies.

As such, the finer aspects of both of them are complicated a little bit. This article will take a look at some of the largest players in the battlefield, as well as the issues that are the most-discussed.

## Politics, Players & Ethics.

Genetically Modified Organisms: merely the name evokes some hidden layer of disgust. The act of physically changing nature to help out our human desires is a very odd one, and so the debate over GMOs in politics turns from a purely scientific one into an ethical issue.

In the international community, there exist 2 main groups of debaters: The United States, and Europe; each of which hold their own opinions of how GMOs should be rolled out in a national setting. However, it is worth mentioning that all sides have disjointed and fractured communities, and not everyone holds the same perspective.

### The US vs Europe: History

The US has the greatest percentage of GMO crops grown: over 3 quarters of all GMOs have been grown in the United States alone, whereas Europe holds less than 6%.

So, then, why is it such a large issue between the two? Well, we're going to have to dive into the histories of both.

Europe has an incredibly large consumer opposition to GMOs largely because of the food-related outbreaks that have occurred.

The largest one was a household name for a very long time: "Mad Cow Disease." In the late 1990s, Great Britain was plagued with a large number of outbreaks in a variety of small farms throughout the country, and this soon spread to the rest of Europe. This was caused by the use of sheep brain as a common feed for cattle, some of which were infected by a form of this disease.

In later years, as the epidemic progressed, the governmental organizations that were tasked with alleviating this issue proclaimed that MCD could only exist in adult cattle, and there was little to no chance that humans would be affected.

However, in 1996, a scientific report established a link between Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) and MCD. This caused enormous public concern; MCD causes the progressive deterioration of the brain stem of adult cattle, and this was thought to occur in humans as well, with the publishing of that report.



As such, the government faced a large amount of backlash from the general public over acting too late; despite killing over 4.5 million cattle retroactively, the government was still in a bad place.

However, it was about to get worse.

GM technologies were being introduced in the EU around the early 2000s, as the world was trying to adopt them for being an incredible way to increase yields. The government was pushing for the widespread adoption of this throughout the EU, but the timing was completely off; for the vast majority of consumers, these announcements sparked visions just like that of the MCD era, of widespread disease and fears.

As such, there was backlash once again, and GMOs were gone in the blink of an eye.

This turned out to be quite an interesting issue, seeing as the agricultural trades between the United States and Europe were very important for both of their sectors; Europe was dominating the corn, soybean and cotton export trades for America—over 26% was bought by Europe.

However, because of America's widespread adoption of GMOs in agriculture (there were no such food outbreaks, and consumers were largely trusting of their government), some changes had to be made, and this change came in the form of "The EC Proposal," by the newly-formed European Commission.

This proposal detailed exactly how American trades would work with the EU regarding the labelling of GM Crops.

At a high level, it'd mean that if processed foods (such as oil) had genetically modified components, then they would need to be labelled as such, unless they were reduced enough that they had no differences to their organic counterparts on the molecular level. In addition, every level of the supply chain had to be made transparent to government facilities and organizations.

Of course, the United States rejected this proposition initially, because this would mean that they could lose potentially billions of dollars to bureaucratic processes. This sparked a decades-long debate over the presences of GMOs in the trade system in both of these superstates, and only now have all of them come to a conclusion.

### The present

The US and Europe still have vastly different ways of dealing with GMOs in their agricultural fields, but they manage to make it work by doing final evaluations in the same way.

![The current methods of GM Production in both countries](https://i0.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Laufig1whitebk.png?w=725)

As you can see from Figure 1, the main differences in the supply chain come from the regulations of companies in both markets.

In the United States, most GM crops come from companies like Monsanto (the largest gene editing and genetic modification company), and the US Law system has large lobbying potential; this is why it's easier for US companies to get around the system, and the regulations reflect that.

The US system places a higher importance on the end product than the process within it. This allows for much more flexibility in the process. However, this also means that very little ethical concerns are taken into consideration, as most of the product management falls onto the corporate side.

In fact, companies have protested this, with the Corporate Communications Director of Monsanto famously stating, “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” This twists the politics of the GMO debate in America to no end, leaving it with an interesting question: who will vouch for the safety of them?

On the other hand, Europe places a strong priority on the process of GMO production, and takes that process out of the hands of companies. Its process was designed with ethics in mind, taking into account the possibilities of a disease outbreak (like the one they experienced so many years ago), and risk management.

One of the most interesting quotes in this debate was said by Tony Vander Haegen, Minister-Counselor for Agriculture, Fisheries and Consumer Affairs of the EC: "Until now, in a context of food surplus, GM food
has no added value, so why take the risk, the EU consumer is asking." It shows that the EU model respects risk, and proactively identifies them, while still accepting that GM Crops are the future.

![A comparison of the approved ](https://i1.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/laufigure2-1.png?w=754)

## Conclusions

Both of the superstates have seen GMOs as an idea to be skeptics about, but only one of them has taken steps to accurately respond to ideas and the feelings of the general public. Only time will tell which ideology will prevail.

The ethical debates behind GMOs.

[toc]

## Introduction
Throughout history, the concept of switching to genetically modified organisms as the global crop supplier has had a heated response.  The two parties, GMOs and anti-GMOs, have refused to flinch despite the constant downpour of evidence in favouring one side, the GMOs.

This article will focus on some of the many ways that GMOs can help out the environment!

## To Spray [Pesticides] or Not to Spray

There is no need for pesticides when using certain types of GMOs. Therefore, if plantations are only GM crops, then the nation can issue a pesticide ban.  This will have dramatic repercussions towards slowing climate change and reducing the environmental impact [see Pesticides; Lethal Not Only to Pests for more on the environmental impact of pesticides].

GM crops have reduced 671.4 million kg or 8.2 % of pesticides globally since being first implemented in 1998.  Such crops have reduced the environmental impact of herbicides and insecticides on crops by 18.4% (Brooks, & Barfoot, 2018).  

However, there are some added benefits from the lack of pesticide necessity.

### No Bioamplification and Bioaccumulation

GM crops do not require pesticides therefore the threat of bioamplification and bioaccumulation is no longer present.  However, though there will no longer be a need to address any risks of bioamplification and bioaccumulation from GMOs, the years of pesticide use have been subtly weaved into almost every food chain on the planet, including humans (take a look at some of our other articles on pesticides for more detail).

Therefore, before the pesticide ramifications become irreversible, and as a society, there must be substantial change in farming methods to solve this.  One of the most potent and effective alternatives, GMOs with Integrated Pest Management farms.

### No Harm to Non-Target Species

The countless species indirectly a subject of pesticide harm will no longer suffer. This allows for species’ populations to resurface to natural levels while not harming the crops. 

The species that may return include pollinators, which is of particular benefits to agriculture and plants, aquatic species, and other populations that do not prey on crops.  Therefore, GMOs help maintain biodiversity in farms, a setting where little to no biodiversity existed before.

### No Conclusive Evidence of Superpests

GMOs have an inbuilt pest removal system.  The common worry has been that these pests will eventually develop resistance to these plants and become superpests, a process conventional pesticide use is facing.  However, no matter which set of data is analyzed, “GM crops are no greater contributor to the evolution of superweeds than other uses of herbicides” (Kniss, 2016).

Some other statements include: “Herbicide-resistant crops can exacerbate ‘superweeds’ but new GM versions can help control [the] problem” (Lim 2014).  


This is because rather than being directly exposed to the pesticide or chemical before the crop has been touched, GMOs make sure the pest eats the crop before the pesticide get ingested (see "Uses of GMOs"). As such, pest extermination becomes much easier, and pests cannot evolve immunity.

## Less Land Use, More Crop Yield

Not only do GMOs reduce the number of pesticides put into local ecosystems, but GMOs require less land to produce the same harvest (Wilson, 2019).  The Genetically Modified (GM) crops produce a larger harvest because the crops are modified to withstand the plagues that kill many of the conventional crops.  This in turn leads to more healthy crops produced using less land.

Less land whilst maintaining more harvests allows for minimal deforestation.  The advantages of saving forests will be expressed later in this post.    

## Local and Global advantages

Although agricultural GMOs are only used at farms, their ultimate consequences and positive effects can be felt all throughout the ecosystems that they reside in. Let's take a look at some.

### Preventing Widespread Plagues

Perhaps the most significant application of GMOs is in reference to the Hawaiian papayas.  These paypayas were on the brink of extinction because of the outbreak of the ringspot virus in 1998 (Gonsalves, 2020).  By implementing GM papayas into the Hawaiian ecosystem, not only were the GM crops resistant to the disease, but the papayas were no longer carriers of the disease further (GMO Answers, 2020), thereby hindering the spread ringspot virus.  

This can be a great asset for countries and consumers, for example: if a particular disease is wiping out a population (i.e. the ring sport disease and Hawaiian papayas), by using GMOs the agricultural sector of the economy will still thrive.  Or, say there is a disease among crops that is communicable to humans and other species, then developing a plant that is able to withstand the virus could save millions of human lives.  

### Protection of food supply for all

Studies show that GM crops control pest populations not only among GMO farming sites, but bordering farming fields have reports of lower pests as well.  The cause of reduced pests is speculated to be habitat relocation (Modern Agriculture, 2018).

As local farms often yield similar harvests (because of climate, soil, sunlight, etc.), the theory is that pests may no longer feed off any plants that look like the toxic GMOs, and relocate to a safer environment.    

However, this does not guarantee lower pesticide emissions from adjacent farms as the overspraying of pesticides is a major issue (Leguee & Davis, 2018) all around the world.

### Improves air quality

GMOs reduce greenhouse gas emissions as there is no longer the constant need to till the field, the most polluting process on a conventional farm site (Becker, 2017).  Furthermore, there is less deforestation allowing for more carbon dioxide absorbed by shrubbery and forests.

Pesticides, on the other hand, have shown evidence of leaving residue in the air (Kyser, 2019).  This, can cause chronic exposure and premature death, depending on the toxicity level of the given pesticide.


### Water Conservation

GMOs help conserve water sites and aquatic biodiversity.  This is because of the lack of tillage, which means that there will be minimal surface water runoff, and no pesticides residue can travel through rainwater or flash floods. Some GM crops are also drought resistant and therefore can produce the same crop yield with reduced water (however, this technology is still being tested).  GM cotton plants have reduced the need for 50% of agricultural cotton related water consumption (Becker, 2017).  


### Preserves Biodiversity and Ecosystems

GMOs reduce the monotony of farm lands; the grounds so void of biodiversity.  This comes as most to all GM crops yield will be high quality produce (they've all been selected to be the best).  As such, farmers require less land to generate equal if not more produce of the same or higher quality.  This results in the preservation of biodiversity and forests, which will have benefits explored later.    

To illustrate the positive impact of GMOs, let's look at the land GM crops have reduced in 2015.  Some of the "cash" crops like corn, soy, cotton and canola would have required upwards of 200, 000 square kilometers in addition to current grounds.

This would have led to severe overpricing and the lack of accessibility of these crops to certain individuals all together (Modern Agriculture, 2018).  However, GMOs eliminate the need for more land and thus help preserve the countless ecosystems which would have been subject to extinction.  

### Lowers Carbon Emissions

Using GMOs reduces mankind’s carbon footprint.  Tillage and deforestation are two processes that release extreme amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment and are limited when using GM crops.  

Tillage is the mechanical manipulation of soil to optimize crop production with direct relations to reducing weeds (Lobb, 2008).  It is the most fossil-fuel reliant practice on farms (Hall, 2016).  Tilling fields have adverse effects on soil quality.  Tillage “fractures the soil, it disrupts soil structure, accelerating surface runoff and soil erosion” (Al-Kaisi, 2020).  Therefore, by using GM crops, there is little need for tillage as the crops are already weed-resistant.  In 2016, the emissions from tractors acause to tiling were reduced an amount equivalent to taking 16.7 million cars of the road (Brooks et. al, 2018).

Below is the exact data of each plant, country, and carbon emissions reduced by using GMOs.  The table’s data is one among the 32 on the source below.  (Additionally, you can look at some of the statistics [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1476792?scroll=top&needAccess=true))



GMOs and their effects on the environment.


## Introduction
Throughout the ages, marketing strategies have marked up the prices of organic foods, stating that they are healthier by being 'more natural.' However, this isn't necessarily the case. GM crops can actually be better for you, and that's what we discuss in this post.

## GMOs Taste Better

GMOs unquestionably, objectively taste better (Minkel, 2007)—It is a simple fact.

Imagine taking a field of corn plants and choosing the most ripe, and full corn.  Scientists study the genes of the best corn crops to create a GM corn crop, making sure that the end product is as good as possible.

Therefore, not only will GMOs taste better, but they sell because of their appearance as ‘the perfect product’.  By using GM crops in convenience stores, there will be fewer sub-par crop products in consumer goods.  This lowers the cost of better tasting produce for consumers (such produce is in abundance and by the supply-demand ratio, the cost will be reduced).  

## GMOs have supplements and are richer in nutrients

Though organic fruits are inherently very healthy (we've unintentionally modified most of them through millenia of artificial selection), scientists have been able to use GMOs to increase certain nutrient values (Lamb, et al., 2016) present in crops.

The process of increasing vitamins in a GM crop is similar to any other modification to an organism’s genome [see How are GMOs Produced].  Increasing the number of healthy supplements is routine in a GM crop, thereby GMOs are filled with more vitamins, minerals, and health benefits (The GMO Debate, n.d.).

A common concern while modifying different aspects of a GMO is the permutations of genes may create an unwanted mutation.  This does not occur.  Each strand of an organism's DNA is independent and CRISPR-Cas9 alters only the intended stand, no mutations attached.  For example, if a GMO is drought-resistant, that does not mean that other attributes such as more vitamins or tolerance to herbicides will also be associated with the plant.

While only one process is required to perform all these mutations, scientists have to individually manipulate each guide RNA to match every specific strand desired in the DNA manipulation (there is only one strand for every mutation).

Furthermore, before the process is complete, the guide RNA double checks by only completing the manipulation if the strip of DNA is directly adjacent to the PAM.  Therefore, no manipulations are related or cause mutations.  For more information on such processes, reading ‘How a GMO is produced’ is highly encouraged.

## Less disease in GM Crops

There are **NO** GMO-borne diseases (Colbert, 2018).  Though there are many speculations of what GMOs might do to one’s health, no peer-reviewed study has identified any conclusive results that are more prevalent among consuming GMOs in particular.

Accusations of links between GMOs and allergenicity are common, however even this cannot be traced to GMOs more than any other non-GM crops.  As per a Harvard study evaluating allergenicity of GM crops, it was concluded that GMOs are no more likely to cause allergic reactions than conventional farming processes (B, et al., 2015).  Many companies, however, attempted to capitalize on the allergenicity of GMOs but came up fruitless as multiple other studies yielded the same result (Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?, 2018).  The same study was conducted several times and each study yielded the same result, GMOs are not prone to trigger any more  allergic than non GM crops.

Using pesticides on plants is more likely to cause cancer than GMOs (Kennedy, 2019).  There is no evidence that GMOs cause cancer (Genetically modified foods - Canadian Cancer Society, n.d.).

There is little conclusive evidence that GMO indicates the presence of more pathogens resistant to medication, notably antibiotics (SH;, n.d.)


Food for thought: GMOs and agriculture vs Organics


## The History behind Revolutionizing Gene Editing
Every organism is defined by a pattern of four nucleotides.  The smallest variations in the configuration of which can create two vastly different species.  Every aspect of an organism - behaviour, adaptability, success - are all determined by an intricate sequencing of nucleotides in genes referred to as a species’ genome (Clark, 2016). 

Hence, to solve the complications of any global species, the right understanding of genetics is not only essential, but can mean the difference between the perseverance or collapse of the planet's biosphere.

The comprehension of evolution, selection, ancestry, differential fertility, hereditary, and environment all lead up to the ability to produce GMOs.  However, even without contemporary technologies and advancements, mankind was able to manipulate the DNA of a species long before.  Here are some of the most important discoveries! You may want to pay special attention, as we'll be talking in more detail about some of them in other articles.


## Plants; The First Recorded By-Product of Artificial Selection 

Scientists traced back the first recorded species to selectively breed in the year 7800 BCE; the wheat crop.  Despite little substantial change in the wheat plant, plants are some of the most evolved and diverse species.  For example, changes between modern corn (increased kernels) and bananas (decreased seeds), and their ancestors.

![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhiEhIGV4AAN0Uh.jpg)

## The First Glimpses of Human Manipulated Genes Among Animals

Approximately 300, 000 years ago advanced man took a wild pack of wolves and used the concept of selective breeding.  This led to the native Chinese dog, and after further breeding, different contemporary species of domestic dogs (Linda et. al, 2016).

Therefore, selective breeding coupled with time can create versatile breeds of species.

## “Father of Genetics”: Gregor Mandel 

Mandel came up with the fundamental laws of genetics widely used to today.  His contributions were a stepping stone in every genetic advancement since the 1900s; when his laws were understood and accepted by the general public (American Public Media, 2018).

![](https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/h4130219/800wm)

## History of Modern Gene Editing

### DNA and the Double Helix

![DNA](https://source.unsplash.com/75CxJTYeUYs/2400x1688)

The double helix structure of DNA was discovered and published by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.  The understanding of the formation of DNA helped create gene splicing.  This, like CRISPR, enables the editing of genes by splicing however, the process is less effective in that it can only impact one gene at a time (American Public Media, 2018).

### A Big Leap in 1973; the First Genetically Engineered [GE] Organism

Scientists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen were able to collaborate and create the first known genetically engineered organism.  The two passed on antibiotic resistance from one species to another.  This led to a series of debates which questioned the risks of gene editing, however the parties concluded that testing could continue under specific regulations (Linda et. al, 2016)

### Mice Became the First Animal Species to Undergo Gene Manipulation

A year after Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen’s discovery (1974), Rudolf Jaenisch and Beatrice Mintz used a similar process to manipulate the DNA of mice embryos (Linda et. al, 2016).  

### The First Few Patents And Approvals Issued for GMOs 

In 1980, The Supreme Court allowed the patenting of GE organisms.  In 1982, human insulin produced by bacteria (Genentech's Humulin) hit the streets as it was approved by the FDA (American Public Media, 2018). 

### The Introduction of CRISPR

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR was first identified and named by Japanese scientists studying E. Coli in 1987 (Krupovic, Forterre, & Ishino, 2018)

### Approval of the First GMOs

Tomato crops, particularly the Calgene's Favr Savr, were modified with the ability to stay stiffer for longer.  These crops were planted and eligible for the marketplace.


### The Significance of CRISPR

The significance of CRISPR clusters were not identified until 2007.  While researching the streptococcus bacteria, scientists identified that CRISPR is a part of the organism's immune system (Plumer, Barclay, Belluz, Irfan, 2018). 

A brief history of gene modification (featuring CRISPR)

## Table of Contents
[toc]

## Introduction
Welcome to the GMO Story! Here, we're going to be going into the science and ecology of GMOs, pesticides, and organic crops, as well as some other industries. This article will detail all that you need to know for the next few articles!

## Understanding GMOs
Officially, a GMO is simply a Genetically Modified Organism. However, the specific definition of these terms varies on a contextual basis. Most organizations define a GMO to be “living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering” (GMO Project, n.d.). In essence, a GMO is some natural organism derived through conventional or organic means and is modified using non-organic means, usually to have a positive effect on the end user.

### The modifications
Before delving into the details, let's take a look at how the media portrays GMOs:

#### The media

![A GMO Banana](https://foodsafetynewsfullservice.marlersites.com/files/2016/02/frankenfood-banana-GMO-3.jpg)

![The Real Problem with GMO Crops](https://cff2.earth.com/uploads/2018/03/05114516/The-real-problem-with-GMO-crops.jpg)
These are the images that have been planted in individuals' minds for decades, ever since GMOs became a viable option for farming. We encourage you to try to keep an open mind throughout this blog series.

#### A brief history.

One must understand that gene modification in living organisms is nothing new; humans have been selectively breeding animals and plans for domestication for millenia (see "History of GMOs" for more), through a process called “artificial selection”. This process is a modification of the conventionally accepted theory of natural selection, pioneered by Charles Darwin.

 Natural selection is a theory based on the premise that adaptation is a necessary means for survival; adaptation to different environments and ecosystems happens through small evolutions over a large period of time, and the animals that adapt better to their surroundings get ‘selected’ to live longer.
 
For instance, a polar bear placed in the Sahara desert would not survive nearly as well as a camel, owing to its lack of adaptation. Artificial selection works in the same way as this, but instead of having nature select the rules for which genes live on, humans do.

 ![](https://source.unsplash.com/UFnHt94r91w/1600x750)

Let’s take the perspective of an ancient hunter-gatherer leader. You have a large number of watermelons at your disposal, each one bearing a little more fruit than the last. In this case, seeing as you want the most edible fruit possible, you would select the last one to breed. This was a core pillar of the Agricultural Revolution, and led to the domestication of a large number of animals and plants.

Today, GMOs are a large part of our world. They make up almost 75% of all crops sold in the US, and have been almost entirely beneficial. However, like many other things, they do have faults. We'll be discussing both sides, but for now, it's time to learn about organic farming.

## Understanding Organic Food
**TL;DR** Organic farming simply means that farmers do not use _synthetic_ products in their farming cycles.

![Organic Bee Pollen](https://source.unsplash.com/L0w3uw9-Xdk/1600x900)
Organic Bee pollen is not made using any synthetic ingredients, throughout its entire product lifecycle.

The practice of organic farming refrains from the usage of chemical products that damage the health of crops and local biodiversity. The dominant ideology is that such practices will lead to sustainable farming sites and healthier crop yields. However, there still remains major hesitation to shift our world into one that relies solely on organic farming. 

Conventional farming practices have been used to feed populations since the dawn of advanced man. The principal focus of such farms is efficiency and generating the most yields [(See video for more)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpkKW45cHaA). However, aboriginal species and local ecosystems pay the ultimate price for these large harvests. 

### Misleading?
While organic farming has been advertised as a type of supply that is completely natural, and can only benefit people, this isn't all cracked up to be.

#### Organic Farms are not Completely Pesticide Free

![](https://source.unsplash.com/-A2IuOZnmHs/1600x750)

While with organic farming, there is a ban on most pesticides that include chemicals that harm native species. However, some of the pesticides allowed in organic farms lead to chronic and terminal diseases in humans while having minimal damaging effects to the environment, such as the recently banned rotenone which leads to the chronic Parkinson Disease [PD].

Guidelines have been altered and more testing is going into the health effects of the constant exposure to some of the new organic farming pesticides, because even organic farms have the leeway to use certain pesticides. 

### Good for One Ecosystem, Worse for Millions

![](https://source.unsplash.com/Zm2n2O7Fph4/1600x750)

Organic farmers use less toxic pesticides. This means that organic farmers have to prepare for spikes in the ecosystem’s primary and secondary consumers and use natural procedures to contain their populations. This leads to increased labour while decreasing efficiency and harvests.

As many crops are damaged because of predation in organic farming processes, organic farmers require more land to have a sufficient amount of crop yield. This, in a world where the contemporary human population is already nearly one-fourth more than what the Earth can sustain simply is not plausible.

 If organic farms were the global source of food production, more individuals would face extreme starvation (more demand), and foods would be priced much higher (less supply). 

![](https://source.unsplash.com/60tataLkJ0U/1600x750)

Rainforest and forest ecosystems would have a scarcer presence and face extinction altogether because organic farming requires more rich land (a single litre of organic milk requires 80% more land than a litre of milk produced through conventional farming. Deforestation processes and some organic farms will omit greater greenhouse gases (i.e. cattle diets from organic farms release more net carbon dioxide emissions.

Certain species will go extinct (habitat loss). The ever growing human population will face the lack of land for housing, and this will create more poverty. Therefore, where organic farming does protect the local environment, organic farming has massive repercussions on human health and an ecological footprint greater than that of conventional farming.

This, the natural question arises, is the notion of organic foods a luxury our Earth can simply not afford? 

## Conclusion
Using organic farming is unideal for a global setting while conventional farming has massive harm on local ecosystems. GMOs are the balance between both of the two, where no major harm goes into local ecosystems and there is little harm globally.

An introduction to GMOs.


## Introduction

In addition to directly affecting organisms through contact, pesticides can also permanently contaminate a given ecosystem, which then indirectly affects us.


## Make it Rain Pesticides; Pesticides and Rain contamination

Pesticides are abundant in rain.  Tests of European rain show that pesticide levels are so much higher than the safe amount; making it illegal for rainwater to be supplied for the public (Mackenzie, & Pearce, 1999).

The water cycle is an essential process of nature, capable of transferring a water droplet, or a water droplet laced with pesticides, nearly 10 to 100 miles from the original site or the site where pesticides were used (Shryer, 1991).  Therefore, pesticides in rain are not only of concern to areas near farming sites, but to all areas within a 100 mile radius of places with rampant pesticide usage (flower shops, community gardens, etc).   

![](https://i.ibb.co/dW0X8Gt/Screen-Shot-2020-06-04-at-4-32-35-PM.png)

As per the analysis of the graph, it is noticed that DDT is among the most common among atmosphere testing sites across the USA (highest detectable percentage. This shows that across all materials, some pesticides can remain not just in one ecosystem, but carried in through others. Unfortunately, the other pesticides are in high concentrations, therefore, an atmospheric combination of these results could have grave ramifications.

The following visual graph illustrates the concentration of pesticides per group in different states.

![](https://i.ibb.co/zPKbp4Q/Screen-Shot-2020-06-04-at-4-37-24-PM.png)

The organochlorine insecticides, considered some of the most deadly [see Pesticides; "Lethal not only to Pests" for more health effects of organochlorine pesticides] are the most abundant.  This posed severe threat to human wellbeing as constant exposure to any pesticides can pose significant harm to the human body.  Therefore, when atmospheric contamination levels are so high, is pesticide toxicity inevitable?

## Human Food Sources are Tarnished

Likely, pesticides in food is the form of pesticide transmission society is most familiar with.  This encompasses most methods of pesticide ingestion.  In small quantities, there is little harm to come from pesticide ingestion, however through large and consistent pesticide intake - coupled with atmospheric and rain contamination - could have a fatal outcome. 

Therefore, with the state of the current environmental contamination (rain and atmosphere), humans are already subject to more than healthy pesticide intake (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health, 2020).

 To take proactive measures and prevent the grave ramifications of pesticide use [see Pesticides; Lethal not only to Pests], it is better to consider a GM alternative, rather than risking more contamination from pesticides used in organic or conventional farm sites.


Pesticides and Contamination

[toc]

## Introduction
Till date, pesticides have ravaged habitats and ecosystems around the world, increased the already damaging ecological footprint of farming sites (both organic and non-organic), and threatened the extinction of countless species. Pesticides may have helped us out in past decades, but they have had terrible consequences on the rest of the industry, and it begs the question: is it worth it?

## Effects on non-target species

Non-target species are species that aren't identified to be issues, but are accidentally targeted by pesticides and herbicides. This can wreak havoc on ecosystems that depend on them for survival.

![Bees and Pesticides](https://source.unsplash.com/IXShv_bCP1Y/1600x900)
Bees have been some of the most hard-hit species for accidental pesticide use.

One of the most common examples of this incident are bees. Bees are responsible for the pollination of eighty percent of world plants, and ninety different food crops. This brings in revenues of nearly fifteen billion in USD (HoneyLove, n.d.) in agriculture. 

**Pesticides kill bees.** Contact with pesticides, whether through sprays or on plants doused with pesticide spray *will* lead to death. If bees are not dead, then the pesticides lead to toxic effects on the species, which eventually leads to Colony Collapse Disorder through the usage of neonicotinoids (an insecticide that strongly resembles the molecular structure of nicotine). Therefore, by continuing the use of pesticides, mankind is biting the hand that feeds them.

**However, this issue does not stop with just bees.** 97% of the harm to protected flora and fauna in the US stems from pesticide use. That is, nearly 1,700 species affected just by two pesticides; Malathion and Chlorpyrifos. These staggering numbers indicate that if there is any hope of saving worldwide wildlife, pesticides must be gone.

## Pesticides and Water
Runoff. Rainwater. Flash floods. These issues aren't very interesting for us urban humans, but they are incredibly dangerous for aquatic ecosystems near rural farms. In organic farming sites, pesticides leak into these sources of water and travel into water contamination sites or marine habitats, through a variety of wastewater systems underground.

![Pesticides have a large runoff capability](https://source.unsplash.com/PV8D2xTjdVo/1600x900)
There are a variety of ways that pesticides can run off into marine and aquatic ecosystems, and can wreak havoc in the same number of ways.


These increased pesticides ravage the ecosystems and biodiversity present in these water bodies, by raising some of the common indicators of poor water qualities. Some indicators of pesticides in poor and inhabitable water contamination include: dissolved oxygen measure under 5 parts per million (ppm), dissolved carbon dioxide kill at 50 ppm and is avoided at 25 ppm, and pH levels under seven are acidic and over fourteen are alkaline. These indicators can have widespread damage to habitats, for example, an algal bloom occurs at dissolved nitrogen levels anywhere upwards of 0.3 ppm. This bloom, in turn, impacts dissolved oxygen levels and can create a hostile environment for certain aquatic species.

Pesticides get into such ecosystems through many means, typically through running underground farms. Therefore, as the natural processes of rain water and flooding are not only unavoidable, but will increase as climate temperature starts to fluctuate the local contamination of water will as well. Thereby, the only way to completely omit pesticide contamination on not-target species is to prevent pesticide usage all together or use GMOs coupled with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) farming.

## Bioaccumulation & Bioamplification

Bioamplification is the way that toxic chemicals become more and more concentrated the further up the food chain you look; each higher-level predator eats more prey, and as a result, a larger amount of toxic chemicals gets concentrated.

![Bioaccumulation Diagram](https://longislandsoundstudy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Page4_BioAccDiagram_Lettersize-lores.jpg)
Bioamplification increases the amount of toxic chemicals present in an organism the higher it is on the food chain.


Bioaccumulation and bioamplification are the main reasons so many apex predators are facing endangerment and even extinction. Many species, such as the American Bald Eagle and arctic polar bears, are suffering from the toxic legacy of pesticides.

Several pesticides, like DDT have been banned for decades, but they still regularly show up in water systems and farms as a result of this phenomenon. It just goes to show that pesticides have an impact that lasts for a long time, and not just in one specific ecosystem.

Pesticides are even found in humans, as they are the highest trophic level in every food chain. This is because of the accumulation of persistent pesticides, typically stored in the fat of humans. Pesticides in humans not only will have severe health ramifications, but can be transferred from mother-to-child in prenatal and neonatal periods [see Pesticides; Lethal Not Only to Pests].


## Superpests & Evolution
The consistent use of pesticides throughout history has allowed pests to develop tolerance.

Let's take the example of Glyphosate. This chemical is a relatively powerful substance, but it is not extremely toxic. As a result, a lot of it must be used to have lasting effects. In the US from 1996-2011, there was rampant Glyphosate use, to help protect crops like soybean, corn and cotton from weeds like fleabane. However, this led to insects and weeds to evolve into incredibly hardy organisms that could break the barrier previously held by Glyphosate (Garthwaite 2012)

In other incidents, superpests overrun crop sites all over the world and allow for crop-strangling, and fruit-devouring species to infect the sources of human food. 

As farmers try to pry these species off farming sites, they will use up more pesticides. Hence, more pesticides are projected to be released into the environment. 

Furthermore, once pests become fully tolerant, newer pesticides will be manufactured and countries may even lift the ban on certain, noxious pesticides if a certain standard of usage is maintained.

As pests become more resistant to pesticides, farmers will send a dispatch highly noxious chemicals or chemicals without adequate testing, which can potentially be worse for not only the environment, but human health.

Read more about the repercussions of superpests in "Pesticides and Diseases".

Pesticides and Ecosystems

[toc]

## Introduction

Synthetic pesticide usage is uncontrolled and widespread. Such practices are of main concern in conventional farming sites. However, organic farms are no worse; some of the 'natural' pesticides the industry uses are just as bad, if not worse. Many strongly opposed to GMOs are unaware of the grave repercussions that pesticides have on human health. However, after evaluation, the ramifications of rampant pesticide use is worse for human health than GMOs. 

This will be the first in a 2-part series about pesticides and humans.

## Ramifications of Rampant Pesticide Use on Human Health

![](https://source.unsplash.com/Vl26HXL7_ZM/1600x900)

### Pesticides: the literal Cancer of Modern Agriculture and Human Health
Common pesticides have carcinogenic and tumor encouraging properties. Despite different pesticides having stronger links to particular cancers, after numerous studies on animals and humans results show no ambiguity; pesticides cause cancer.

Here are some of the worst offenders used specifically in organic farming.

#### Phenoxy herbicides
Phenoxy herbicides and the encompassed chemicals lead to the following cancers soft-tissue sarcomas [STS] and lymphoma (Dich, Zahm, Hanberg, & Adami, 1997) 

#### Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated hydrocarbons or organochlorine pesticides are some of the most common pesticides used to date. These include, but are not limited to: DDT, methoxychlor, dieldrin, chlordane, and benzene hexachloride (Coggon, & Acheson, 1982). These pesticides have direct links to the following cancers “STS, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), leukemia, and, less consistently, with cancers of the lung and breast” (Dich et. al, 1997, p. 1).

#### Organophosphorous Pesticides
Organophosphorus pesticides may be the most toxic ever used. Though cancer, notably NHL and leukemia (Dich et. al, 1997) is caused by constant usage, the primary concern is the high levels of toxicity that can kill within a matter of hours (Than, 2013). Some cases of these pesticides in food products have swiftly killed 28 Indian children and 20 children from Sierra Leone.

#### Triazine
Triazine, more commonly in herbicides, is referred to as some of the most chemically stable pesticides. However, these herbicides can link to ovarian cancer among other diseases still being explored (Dich et. al, 1997).

Unfortunately, there are more pesticides that link to cancer. The information above includes *only a few* of the more common pesticides and what cancers they cause. Direct exposure to any pesticide or even eating small traces can kill you within hours. Using GMOs ultimately prevents deaths caused because of pesticide-borne cancer, and data shows that using pesticides on plants is more likely to cause cancer than GMOs (Kennedy, 2019). Don't be tricked by the 'natural' marketing; organic pesticides are often worse for you.

### Pesticide Exposures in Infants.

![](https://source.unsplash.com/uY0ijcyrvpo/)

This is possibly the worst side effects of organic pesticides; they shatter our youngest. To understand how this works, we're going to have to head back in time.

Evidence of toxic chemicals from human perinatal transmission dates back to the late 1970s. Such transmission occurs particularly from human breast milk as a result of bioamplification (Heifetz, n.d.) — read more about bioamplification in our other pesticide articles. The bioamplification theory poses a greater threat to higher trophic levels, and human civilization is the highest of all the species.

Excessive amounts of fat stored in the human body contain highly concentrated, noxious chemicals which are particularly vulnerable and transitable during pregnancies and lactation.

#### Fetus Exposure through Vertical Transmission

Exposure to pesticides as a fetus could have grave ramifications. Some of the severe effects include brain trauma, chronic nervous damage, and less consistently death (Natural Pesticides Information Center, 2019). There are multiple ways of mother-to-child transmission. The most deadly encompasses the transmission of the toxins into the nervous system.

If the damage is particularly severe, the child may suffer from life-long cognitive and development issues. If the ingested toxins are consistent and in high doses, the child may suffer from life-long cognitive and development issues. However, such cases are rare and occur with only certain pesticides (typically of organophosphorus pesticides and their components) (Robb, & Baker, 2019).

Fat-soluble pesticides have led to multiple cases of human pesticide poisoning and are transmittable from human perinatal transmission (i.e. as a fetus or through breast milk) (Davies et. al, n.d). As stated before, these toxins are stored in the fat of humans and transmitted into the fat of children (Heifetz, n.d.)—making them more prone to pesticide related diseases in the future. 

#### Pesticides and Breast Milk poisoning

In addition to the accumulation of pesticides from prenatal transmission, newborns ingest poison with every meal. Human breast milk transfers every vitamin a child needs and helps boost the immune system. However, what may be unknown is that alongside the ability to ward off disease, the loving process of lactation is marred by what has been identified as toxic chemicals stemming from excess pesticide use (Mead, 2008).

Some of the chemicals have been identified, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) for one is not only found in women's maternal milk, but in virtually every species on the planet (Williams, 2005). Furthermore, the levels of DDT and DDE were particularly high, and in a study conducted on women not directly exposed to pesticide sprays, the staggering results indicate mean DDT levels of 0.13 (Heifetz, n.d.). 

OCPs “are well known for their long persistence in the environment and living organisms due to their high lipophilicity, bioaccumulation and biomagnifying through the food chain” (Salama, 2017). These pesticides have been abundant in women’s breast milk across the globe. Some statistics of pesticide quantities present in women lactation from different countries are listed in *Table 1*:

| Compounds 	| Country 	| Amounts and Reference 	|
|:---------:	|:------------:	|:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:	|
| DDT 	| Japan 	| 272 µg/g milk lipid (Nagayama et al) 	|
| 	| South Africa 	| 238.23 µg/l Bouwman et al., 10 µg/g milk fat (Sereda et al.) 	|
| 	| Germany 	| 0.0815 µg/g milk lipid (Zietz, et al.) 	|
| 	| Bangladesh 	| 2123 ng/g milk lipid Bergkvistet al., 349 ng/g milk lipid Bergkvistet al. [26] 	|
| 	| India 	| 100.3 ng/g milk lipid Bedi, et al. [27] 	|
| 	| Australia 	| 9 ng/g lipid Mueller et al. [22] 	|
| 	| USA 	| 107-102 pg/g milk lipid Weldon et al. [25] 	|
| 	| UK 	| 0.025 µg/g milk lipid Harris et al. [14] 	|
| p,p'-DDE 	| Poland 	| 634 ng/g milk lipid Jaraczewska et al. [17] 	|
| 	| UK 	| 0.283 µg/g milk lipid, Harris et al. [14] 	|
| 	| Australia 	| 311 ng/g lipid Mueller et al. [22] 	|
| 	| USA 	| 3.17-3.49 µg/g milk lipid Weldon et al. [25] 	|
| 	| India 	| 1574.1 ng/g milk lipid Bedi et al. [27] 	|
| HCB 	| Australia 	| 18 ng/g lipid Mueller et al. [22] 	|
| 	| UK 	| 0.025 µg/g milk lipid Harris et al. [14], non detected-180 ng/g milk lipid Kalantzi et al. [15] 	|
| 	| USA 	| 191-223 pg/g milk lipid, Weldon et al. [25] 	|
| 	| Germany 	| 0.0229 µg/g milk lipid, Zietz et al. [21] 	|

Table 1: Average concentrations of various pesticides in breast milk across the world

Banned pesticides, especially the persistent ones like DDT, are still in ecosystems, which means that they will still be in the milk that mothers feed their young. Perhaps this is a, however gory, expansion of the saying: “what goes around, must come around.”


#### Infants, and Young Children; a Deadly Pairing of Perinatal Transmission with Constant Exposure. 

Developing bodies are more vulnerable to the risks of pesticides. Compared to adults, newborns, infants, and young children are more susceptible to terminal illness or death caused by pesticide toxicity (Natural Pesticides Information Center, 2019). This is because neonatal systems are still developing, and excessive exposure to toxins hinder normal and healthy growth.

Furthermore, children’s kidneys can filter only a certain extent of toxins before the child’s systems collapse (Heifetz, n.d.). If a child is in frequent contact with pesticides, a system collapse is not unlikely as the child’s exposure to perinatal transmission is coupled with current transmissions.

## Conclusion

In order to truly understand the battle between GMOs and organics, one *needs* to understand how and why pesticides are a vital part of the debate. In the next article in this series, we'll explain some more of the effects of pesticides on humans.

Pesticides: Lethal Not Only to Pests


## Introduction
Pesticides are synonymous with destruction, not only for the environment, but human health as well.  These chemicals have a myriad of adverse effects on human health.  These effects can vary in severity depending on the quantity of the dose, frequency of exposure, and method of ingestion.  

Every pesticide has some extent of toxic effects to humans (Natural Pesticides Information Center, 2019).  After extensive research, the following are some of the most frequent bodily effects of consistent pesticide use: “dermatological, gastrointestinal, neurological, carcinogenic, respiratory, reproductive, and endocrine effects” (Nicolopoulou et. al, 2016) among many others.

This post will discuss some of the more common pesticides and the dangers that they pose to human society.

## Organophosphorus pesticides

**Status**: widely available in agriculture and public health.  Available for residential gardening as well (Than, 2013).

### Toxicity

Minor symptoms include: precipitation, mucus discharge, nausea, vomiting, tear and salivary release, contracted pupils, shaking, and confusion.  

The onset of symptoms can occur within mere minutes of intake (Nicolopoulou et. al, 2016) and usually needs multiple weeks to fully heal.

### Severe Toxicity

Organophosphorous can often cause death, typically among young children with developing immune systems.  

Organophosphates are rapidly absorbed by bodies.  These substances then inhibit cholinesterase.  Without the cholinesterase, there is a build up acetylcholine.  Acetylcholine is responsible for regulating nervous signals.  A heightened amount of acetylcholine creates overactive nerves and death, typically due to on-land suffocation (Than, 2013).

## Organochlorine Pesticides
**Status**: Widely used across the world

Branches of organochlorine pesticides are arguably the most toxic in the world.

Take 1,3-dichloropropene as an example.  The lack of consistent exposure needed to induce adverse health effects allows for widespread impacts of 1,3-dichloropropene.  For instance, of fifteen Californian workers, nine contracted severe symptoms of 1,3-dichloropropene toxicity (kidney damage).

More generally, the symptoms of organochlorine pesticides are severe and stem from the pesticides’ ability to create fluctuation in “certain hormones, enzymes, growth factors and neurotransmitters”  (Kleanthi, 2015).  These pesticides are typically dioxins and have the ability to cause cancers, particularly of the reproductive systems, and stay in the environment for a long time (Brazier, & Wilson, 2017).  Some symptoms of organochlorine pesticides in humans include implications of the reproductive system, sterility, toxicity of the developmental system, neurological system, and immune system (Kleanthi, 2015).

While one *may* consider organic farming an effective alternative to pesticide contamination, this is a fallacy, as pesticides are present in the air and organic farms are permitted to use certain levels of pesticides. 

## Rotenone

**Status**: Banned in most developed countries, but permitted if used under the organic farming label.

Rotenone is toxic, typically for the nervous system to every species studied.  Some symptoms or chronic exposure include induced vomiting, clonic convulsions, muscle tremor, and a lack of coordination (Gupta, 2014).  Furthermore, there is a high possibility of developing terminal illnesses such as Parkinson’s Disease (PD) (Spivey, 2011). However, it is allowed to be used if it is in organic foods, seeing as it is not a synthetic material, and is extracted from the seeds of a number of flowering plants.

## Conclusion

It's clear that organic foods need a lot more legislation before all consumers accept them. However, we're definitely getting there. GMOs are an amazing way to avoid all of these pesticides, and stay with the scientifically accurate methods of pest control.




Pesticides: Further complications

## Introduction
In the last post in this series, we discussed some ways that GMOs can mix with organic plants to decrease genetic diversity, leading to issues of pests. However, GMO interactions can also decrease other populations by simply being more genetically fit, reducing the number of resources available to other species.

## Terminology

**Genetic Fitness**: How well a given organism is suited to its environment as a direct result of its genotypes.

## GMO Salmon

One of the most common examples that is brought up in the debate surrounding GMOs and the ethical barriers is salmon. In 1998, AquaBounty announced that they had genetically engineered a type of freshwater Atlantic salmon that could make it to market over 2x faster than previous methods ("Fast-growing genetically engineered salmon", 2019).

The company took a growth hormone from a different species of salmon that matured much quicker: the Chinook salmon, which not only grows during one part of the year, but around all times of the calendar. This meant that the GM Salmon did not grow any longer in total, but matured much quicker.



Obviously, this had the potential for huge market gains, but there was one main issue in testing. When put into the same environment as regular Atlantic salmon. When given unlimited food, the GM salmon would take away a large majority of it for themselves, and start growing more than their organic counterparts. 

![A growth chart of organic Atlantic Salmon vs GM Salmon in an artificial environment](https://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig3.png?w=893)
A diagram of the growth of GMO Salmon and their Organic counterparts.

In addition, this increased genetic fitness caused the population of the original salmon to decrease; they couldn't compete as well with the GM ones.

However, in a more natural setting, where food was controlled, the total growth of both types of salmon were very close (Landry 2015), with the GM Salmon only just getting ahead of the organic ones.

There's still too little data to go off, which is why this GM Salmon has not been released in the wild, but it does pose an ethical question: if we release GMOs into the wild, is it worth the benefit to us?

## Possible Solutions

![](https://source.unsplash.com/4eBOAeFfY0w/1600x900)

In the past few blog posts, you've seen two ways that GMOs can affect interspecies relationships, through affecting gene diversity and making the population as a whole more susceptible to disease, as well as taking over the resources of a given ecosystem.

However, there are ways that are being developed to help make these functions more safe.

One of the largest is the idea of synthetic biocontainment, and this is one of the most promising.

In a 2015 study by *Nature*, a synthetic amino acid was put into a strain of *Escherichia coli*, which the bacterium depended on for survival. This was done over a matter of weeks, and after enough evidence that the bacteria were metabolizing the new acid exclusively, it was ready for testing in a controlled nature simulation.

There, it was found that the bacteria could not survive without outside help; the modification made them depend on the new amino acid exclusively, and this was not something that was found in nature (Mandell et. al, 2015).

As a result, it was an excellent way to restrict the spread of GMOs, with the lead researcher stating that, "The resulting GMOs cannot metabolically bypass their biocontainment mechanisms using known environmental compounds, and they exhibit unprecedented resistance to evolutionary escape through mutagenesis and horizontal gene transfer. This work provides a foundation for safer GMOs that are isolated from natural ecosystems by a reliance on synthetic metabolites." (Mandell et. al, 2015)

Other methods like this have already been tested, like the idea of "terminator seeds." In essence, these are seeds that have been modified to die or produce sterile (products that cannot reproduce further) seeds.

![](https://source.unsplash.com/UhrHTmVBzzE/1600x900)

This would mean that every year, farmers that use GM crops in production would need to buy new ones. However, this technology is owned by Monsanto Inc (the largest manufacturer of GMOs and GM Seeds), who faced incredible backlash after the technology was revealed, with high-profile individuals like Vandana Shiva (a fierce environmental and pro-GMO advocate) stating that, "The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that would eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet."

Terminator seeds would ensure Monsanto's survival, but it'd be incredibly expensive for others. This ties into the political aspects of GMOs, which you can read more about in our "Ethics of GMOs" article, which is a comparison of the US and Europe policies.

Ultimately, GM Crops need to be studied a lot more before being deployed in the real world. Their reproductive activity may have drastic impact on horizontal gene flow and drive, as well as local biodiversity. Until these have been studied more, genetically-modified animals may not be able to make it into the real world.

## Conclusion

![](https://source.unsplash.com/vrbZVyX2k4I/1600x700)

In the past two blog posts, you've seen some of the ways that GMOs *may* affect biodiversity in the real world. However, it's always important to take everything that is stated with a grain of salt—GMOs are a very complex issue, and cannot be reduced down to just 2 articles (although we try). As such, it's important that you take a look at our [references](/bibliography), and do a little digging around for yourself.

GMOs and interspecies relationships: Genetic Advantages


[toc]

## Introduction
As with any new technology, the way that a product is deployed is a big part of the overall success of the product, and the links that the product forms with the other ones in its market are even more important. This business analogy can be tied deeply to GMOs and the interactions that a new GM Crop or organism has with the ecosystem around it.

This will be a 2-part series, each detailing the most important interactions that GMOs have in their local environments, as well as examples with specific analogies and species.

## Terminology
**Biodiversity** is defined to be "the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem." In other words, biodiversity is the amount of species that are living in one common ecosystem. 

**Genetic Diversity** is, as might be obvious, a smaller version of biodiversity. Instead of comparing multiple species, defining genetic diversity requires comparing the genome sequences of multiple organisms of the _same_ species. In other words, Genetic Diversity is the measure of how many different genotypes a given species has in one ecosystem.

**Genotypes** are the genetic characteristics of a given organism's cellular structure. Put together, an organisms genotypes make up that organism's *phenotype*.

**Phenotypes** are the observable characteristics of an organism. These are all visible through our 5 main senses, and are decided by an organism's genotypes.

## Species Diversity in Ireland
To understand how GMOs may impact genetic diversity in the future, we're going to have to go back in time.

In the 1800s, potatoes were grown not from seeds, but from one singular ‘mother’ plant. Rather than sowing and planting seeds, they would take small pieces from one large potato and plant them.

This meant that every single potato that was planted was the exact same; since they all came from one plant, they would all carry the exact same genes. At the time, this strategy was incredibly beneficial, as it produced a lot of crops quickly, seeing as the entire potato didn't have to mature in order to create offspring.

However, a disastrous disease soon arrived—the *Phytophthora infestans* fungus landed in Ireland in 1845. This fungus-like organism was an incredible pest, capable of wiping out dozens of potatoes a day. However, the scale of the outbreak might have been contained had the potatoes not all been the same. In other words, there could have been a greater chance of recovery had there been more diverse genotypes.

![A demonstration of how genotype diversity can influence how ](https://i0.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig11.png?w=810)

As you can see from *Figure 1*, the lack of differing genes meant that no potatoes were given the chance to mutate favorably. In a genetically diverse population, there would've been more opportunity for some organisms to evolve genes that had some form of immunity against *P. infestans*. (Landry 15)

Eventually, the fungus spread throughout the entire population, and caused the Irish Potato Famine.

## Hybridization

Astute readers will see that the ultimate cause of the Irish Potato Famine was classical genetic modification through artificial selection; rather than allowing nature to take its course, humans artificially selected certain subpopulations to prosper.

However, one of the main risks of contemporary GMO production is its ability to form hybrids, which could decrease genetic diversity. Before getting into some examples, it's important to truly understand what hybridization means.

Hybridization is a form of gene modification that binds together the genes of two or more plants, in order to produce beneficial results. (Landry 15)

This is done through a process known as cross-pollination for fruits and vegetables. Essentially, the pollen from the stamen of one plant is put into another one. This means that the transplanted organism has the main genotypes of the other donor, allowing it to have the same qualities, but in a different form.

In organic farming, crossing two plant species with each other almost always results in a new gene combination, which can be beneficial; the breeding allows for greater genetic diversity, ensuring the survival of the species.

Some of the most well-known hybrid plants are strawberries (they are a cross between *Fragaria* and *Ananassa*), boysenberries, nectarines, and plantains. Each of these species has existed in perfect harmony with their natural ecosystems, and there haven't been many negative effects. (Landry 15)

## GMO Hybrids

However, issues arise when organic plants are crossed with GM ones.

Organic hybrids don't pose threats because they are created through natural selection, which means that they don't have a large genotypical advantage over the others. (Landry 15)

On the other hand, GMOs are artificially made to have superior genotypes. This means that when they are crossed with organic organisms, the resulting organism will have genotypes that are both artificially and naturally selected, creating an issue of genotype superiority.

When one organism can survive better in an environment, it is a given that that organism's genes will survive longer, eventually causing the populations of the other organisms in that environment to decrease, ultimately decreasing the total genetic diversity.

When GMOs are crossed with organic foods, this can and *will* happen, with the same devastating consequences as the Irish people found out in the 1800s. However, it's already happening. Let's take a look at one example of this.

## Scotts Miracle-Gro: A hybrid disaster

In 2007, some of the first versions of Scotts Miracle-Gro were being tested in a facility near a golf course.

If you don't already know, Scotts Miracle-Gro is a GM grass that is designed to withstand nearly all herbicides, in order to be able to grow on large fields, like yards.

However, the type of grass that was modified was wind-pollinated, and so its spores could be spread very easily; just a simple gust could disperse its seeds a long way.

Of course, this is exactly what happened. Soon after the experiments started, researchers found copies of the herbicide-resistant gene in the wild grasses up to *9 miles* away from the testing sites (see *Figure 1*). The gene had spread to all sorts of different species, and it was rare to find a species that *wasn't* affected by this gene, showing that GMOs have power to hybridize with a multitude of other species, and dangerously decrease genetic diversity at a rapid rate.

![Diagram of GM grass spread](https://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig2.png?w=505)


After the FDA found out about this incident, they took responsibility for testing (Landry 15), and Scotts was fined $500 000 USD.


## Other incidents

However, this was not an isolated incident. Instances of GMOs mixing with organic crops are a prevalent issue, and have been uncovered in cases all over the world.

In 2001 and 2009, Mexican Bt maize was found in local strains in differing quantities. In 2005, UK Scientists found instances of pesticide-resistant genes transferring over to certain weed species, making the entire effort futile. In 2010, American scientists found that over 83% of wild canola had a genetically modified herbicide-resistant gene.

Unless more care is taken, these issues will start spiking more and more. This is the single biggest issue with GM crops; they can spread relatively easily, and when they do, they *do not stop*. Owing to the fact that companies have a large portion of control (see our "Politics of GMOs" article), solutions to this issue are hard to come by. Reproductive activity for GM Crops needs to be studied more, and if it is not, then the whole planet may face issues of genetic diversity.

The next blog post in this series will focus on how hybridization of GM Crops can cause extreme genetic fitness, and how this can destroy ecosystems in other ways than causing a lack of genetic diversity.

GMOs and interspecies relationships: Genetic Diversity


Evolution, a theory proposed by Charles Darwin in the late 1850s, coupled with time has created the possibility of a widespread plague with projected deaths upwards of ten million by 2050 (Sandoiu, 2018).  These figures stem from the rampant pesticide use which has created superweeds and superpests.  These pests are highly communicable, and have become resistant to modern medicine.  

![](https://source.unsplash.com/VMKBFR6r_jg/1600x900)

The natural evolving of a species occurs because of natural selection.  Microevolution is a minor change in a species' offspring (Than, 2018), such as the ability to resist certain pesticides (Bradshaw, & Holzapfel, 2001).  Therefore, after spraying uncontrolled amounts of pesticides for nearly the past century, the weeds and pests have become tolerant and pose a grave threat to human health.  The recent cases of resistant pests are growing slowly but surely.

For example, the Candida auris (C. auris) fungus which affects the immunocompromised.  In 2018, C. auris, despite killing a man in a Brooklyn hospital, was far from dead.  The hospital staff explained that the fungus was ubiquitous even after using fungicides.  That hospital room needed to be fully cleansed, including the replacement of the ceiling and floor tiles (Wilson, 2019).   

A similar concept, but with the potential to trigger more grim human health ramifications, arises from industrial livestock.  The most common drug issued is antibiotics to, in theory, take proactive measures before there is a patient zero (an unknown carrier of a bacterial infection).

![](https://source.unsplash.com/u4Ln2-ULLiU/1600x900)

However, lucrative farm owners insert antibiotics into livestock to gain heftier and thereby more profitable animals. This leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can transmit from animal-to-human (Sandoiu, 2018), and can create incurable disease as antibiotics are used to treat ailments of the human body. This is of particular concern right now, seeing as there is an Ebola epidemic in the DRC, which was initially spread from fruit bats.

Furthermore, the residue of antibiotics in meat provides more exposure to antibiotics and can lead to human antibiotic tolerance (Akimoladun, & Falowo, 2019), and therefore, more pesticide-borne deaths.


This blog has debated over GMOs using many studies, and a variety of perspectives.

However, there is the anti-GMO side which also has a fair argument that we could not battle against, and this side often turns to how much of GM crops’ effects are unknown to society, owing to their capitalistic nature and secrecy.

Major corporations capitalized on how GMOs could be more harmful for humans than the current use of pesticides.  Hence, the effects of GMOs on human health have faced extreme scrutiny the past two decades, but insofar, studies have not proven any landmarks towards derailing the implementation of GM crops (We highly recommend listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's StarTalk episode that details a fair perspective on both sides of the debate [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_9eng-xpcg)).

However, this scrutiny has also unveiled a large number of ecological issues that can arise, the largest one being toxicity.

The full effects of the GMOs being pesticide resistance on certain species still remain unknown.  This may lead to some species looking for other plants as sources of food (Glass, 2013).  However, outpour of funding for GMOs go to ensure that there is above adequate research on the effects of GMO on non-target species. (We detail more ecological issues in the "GMOs and interspecies relationships" series)

## Conclusion
It should be understood that GM crops will never outrace time.  Synthetic pesticides have been in use ever since World War II and it will be too late for the planet if mankind waits that long to conclude the same contemporary conclusions.  Therefore, the past one-fifth of a century has enough testing to conclude that there are no severe implications on human health, while studies and tests continue to run on GMOs and other species.

GMOs are scientific, but that doesn't mean that they have to be scary. They're becoming a large part of the global society, and we now have the tools to help out nearly everyone in the pursuit of world peace.




The GMO Story.

Loading…