Skip to content
Topics
Stories

Considering new data on genetically modified corn

An article recently pub­lished in the journal Food and Chem­ical Tox­i­cology shows the results of a two-​​year study on the health effects of a corn species pro­duced by the agri­cul­tural giant, Mon­santo. The corn is genet­i­cally mod­i­fied to resist the her­bi­cide Roundup, and per­vades the U.S. agri­cul­tural system. The paper claims that mice fed a diet con­sisting of 11 per­cent of the novel corn species were two to three times more likely to develop tumors. As the first article to present evi­dence that genet­i­cally mod­i­fied organ­isms can have inherent health effects, some critics have called the research methods into ques­tion. We asked Chris Bosso, a pro­fessor in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs in the Col­lege of Social Sci­ences and Human­i­ties, to explain the impact the new data will have on the growing dis­cus­sion of genet­i­cally mod­i­fied foods.

How concerning are these findings, given both the data presented in the paper and the reach of Monsanto’s maize products?

While we want to be careful about extrap­o­lating from one study, if sub­stan­ti­ated the find­ings raise pro­found con­cerns about the long-​​term human health effects of genet­i­cally mod­i­fied food crops. Critics have long argued that Roundup-​​resistant vari­ants only encourage overuse of the her­bi­cide, with adverse chem­ical effects on human and animal species. How­ever, this study’s find­ings sug­gest far graver health dan­gers from both the her­bi­cide and the vari­ants engi­neered to with­stand it. If sub­stan­ti­ated, such find­ings would have dra­matic impacts on a U.S. food system heavily dom­i­nated by GM corn, wheat, and soybeans.

Should consumers expect the findings to change the market in any way?

Not any­time soon, unless con­sumers simply stop buying com­mer­cially pre­pared processed foods and decide to rely on only home-​​cooked meals from grains pro­duced out of non-​​GM vari­ants. That would include any meat or poultry raised on corn. That’s how deeply embedded GM vari­ants are in the U.S. food supply. This being said, any emer­gence of focused con­sumer con­cerns about the long-​​term health effects of GM crops would shake the nation’s food safety system, not unlike what hap­pened in Europe in the 1990s with out­breaks of mad cow dis­ease. Again, while we want to be cau­tious about extrap­o­lating from a single study, its poten­tial to cat­alyze public con­cern about GM food cannot be overstated.

What do the findings add to the current body of public policy research regarding genetically modified foods?

The results raise warn­ings that force us to think hard about our stan­dards for proof and about the role of pre­cau­tion in policy deci­sions about risk. If his­tory is any guide — and here I’m thinking about the battle that ensued after pub­li­ca­tion of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962 — we may well soon be wit­ness to a pretty nasty open fight over appro­priate method­ology, stan­dards for proof, and whose find­ings engender greater trust. Given the bil­lions of dol­lars involved, defenders of GM foods, Mon­santo in par­tic­ular, will debate every last point. And, as his­tory also shows, we as con­sumers, and cit­i­zens, aren’t well equipped to know whose word is “right.” It may well all come down to whose word we most trust.

– by Angela Herring

More Stories

Photo of the Capitol Building at night

High stakes for politics, SCOTUS in 2018

01.04.2018
Photo of the crashed truck that was used in the October 31st attack in Manhattan.

Weaponizing Language: How the meaning of “allahu akbar” has been distorted

11.08.2017
Northeastern logo

Why I love studying Spanish

05.29.20
Uncategorized