SEA hosts GMO debate with students and faculty

Students for Environmental Action (SEA) hosted a debate Thursday on whether or not genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be used in food products. The event, which was held as a part of the group’s Earth Week festivities, gave students the opportunity to become more informed about their food choices and food security.

“We genetically modify animals, we genetically modify seeds in order to create more successful plants and, for everyone’s intents and purposes, generally corn and soy are the predominantly genetically modified crops that you guys would be aware of,” senior Juliana Vigorito, a panelist at the event, said. “About 60 percent of foods on a typical U.S. grocery shelf have some sort of ingredient that is genetically modified.”

Vigorito, a member of the Woodrow Wilson Debate Team, debated the topic of GMOs along with fellow panelists. Panelists included current senior David Israel who also a member of the Woodrow Wilson Debate Team; Dr. Alexios Monopolis, a lecturer in the Earth & Planetary Sciences and Hopkins alumna and Raychel Santo from the Global Environmental Change & Sustainability (GECS) department, founder of Real Food Hopkins. She is currently program coordinator for Food Communities & Public Health at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

SEA Treasurer Hannah Farkas moderated the debate and directed a number of questions to the panelists that sparked discussion on the production and consumption of GMOs.

“Can you explain what exactly are GMOs? Is the genetic engineering process simply a minor extension of plant breeding techniques or does genetic engineering represent a fundamental discontinuity with the age-old practice of farmers selecting seeds?” Farkas asked.

Santo discussed the ways in which traditional farming techniques have adapted alongside the progress of human technology, leading to new organism-modifying techniques.

“When we crossbreed, humans can still intervene. We just sometimes speed up the natural process,” Santo said. “Mutagenesis is a way where we shoot seeds with gamma radiation to try to kind of see where the DNA goes and as a result we’re trying to speed up natural selection.”

Santo also described the distinctions between different varieties of genetic modification.

“You could genetically modify for herbicide resistance. Herbicides and insecticides are both types of pesticides, which are chemicals used to kill pests,” Santo said. “When you spray the plants that have been genetically modified, the plants will survive, but all the weeds around them will die. You also have insecticide-resistant GMOs, and those are [called] BT. These plants are bred to contain a protein called Bacillus thuringiensis, which is actually an organic spray as well so it’s natural bacterium that kills insects.”

Santo remarked on the variety of reasons for which seeds can be genetically modified.

“You can also modify them for drought resistance or to increase certain nutrients,” she said. “When we say genetically modified foods its like a huge sweeping designation for lots of different things that you could do to seeds.”

Monopolis raised his concerns about the safety of GMOs for human consumers and for ecosystems, outlining reasons why he is against the use of GMOs.

“One is something known as the precautionary principle... in the absence of near certainty in the scientific community, in terms of the potential harmful effects of something, we should always act in a more conservative fashion in terms of not pursuing a type of behavior or action that might potentially cause harm,” Monopolis said.

“The reality is that there’s not enough scientific data out there to prove a point. And that’s where the precautionary principle comes into play. I’m not necessarily trying to state or fear-monger in the sense that I think or believe or know that GMOs are going to cause some level of irrecoverable harm in the natural ecosystem and ecological processes around the planet, but the point is that we just don’t know.”

Israel argued that GMOs show great promise in protecting the environment and should be utilized without hesitation.

“Some have been used for decades; some have been proved by scientific studies... While it might seem intuitive to be conservative, being conservative obviously does come with a cost. There are benefits that come from using GMOs,” Israel said.

The panel was then asked whether they believed GMOs were safe for human consumption. Israel argued that GMOs were safe for consumers, but agreed that without long-term studies their impact on ecosystems could not be fully understood. Santo argued that the GMOs that have been approved for sale are safe for human consumption since they have undergone rigorous testing.

Monopolis asserted that it is unclear whether GMOs could cause harm to consumers. He argued that because GMOs have emerged so recently and have not been involved in long-term studies, it is impossible to know whether or not GMOs would have an impact on human health. He explained that some animal studies had shown a link between GMOs and organ damage.

The panelists spent the rest of the debate discussing how the lingering safety concerns about GMOs should be balanced with the pressing food needs of the global south. They also discussed the ways in which they consider GMOs to be one facet of a broken system of food security, an issue they felt needed fundamental change in order to feed the hungry, prevent the continuation of corporate consolidation and protect the environment.

After the debate, Farkas said that one way for students to become more environmentally conscious is to be more aware of the impact of their food.

“I think a big thing is just getting more educated about where your food comes from, making a conscious decision to learn what you’re eating, why you’re eating it and what caterers did to get it to you,” Farkas said. “Bon Appétit is very focused on getting organic food and local food onto the campus, but not all of it is, and if you’re eating off campus, you don’t always know what’s in your food.

Farkas hoped that the debate allowed students to learn more about the issues concerning the food industry.

“It’s more than just GMOs and whether they’re good or bad for people and the environment. It’s the whole food system that’s the issue, and how it’s structured. How do we feed 10 billion people with our current food system, and what can we be doing differently?” Farkas said. “What should we be doing differently? And are GMOs something that we rely on?”