REVELATIONS IN SCIENCE: Exposing GMOs — and Then Exposing the Exposés

Art Design: huxley.media via Photoshop inspired by René Magritte’s painting «Portrait of Stephi Langui», 1961

For several decades now, public consciousness has been stirred by a three-letter word that provokes nervous reactions — a word many consider almost indecent, one that stands for something truly terrible. Its meaning isn’t always clear: a significant number of people either don’t know or only vaguely understand what this abbreviation stands for.

So, to make sure everyone can follow along, here’s a little secret: GMO — genetically modified organisms. Although strictly speaking, that’s not entirely accurate. All animals and plants currently living on Earth didn’t exist in this form before. The genes of their ancestors were modified through perfectly natural processes: inbreeding, random mutation, exposure to natural radiation — and countless other ways. In other words, we are all GMOs.

That’s why the term GMO is now interpreted more narrowly — it refers specifically to organisms whose genes have been altered using methods invented by humans, methods that do not exist in nature. And many believe that such organisms pose a deadly threat.

For those who share that belief, 2012 brought a moment of vindication: French biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini (b. 1960) conducted an experiment that, according to him, provided undeniable evidence of the harm genetically modified corn can cause to rats — namely, a marked increase in the development of cancerous tumors. What more proof of the dangers of GMOs could one possibly need? Let’s take a closer look at what kind exactly…

IS THERE ANY BENEFIT TO GMOs?

hen, at the end of the previous century, scientists began using new techniques to insert foreign genes into genomes — such as ballistic or viral transformation, electroporation, and Agrobacterium-mediated transfer — it turned out these methods could endow organisms with entirely new traits, many of which are highly beneficial.

The result was a range of new organisms resistant to harmful insects, fungi, and viruses; impervious to herbicides; able to survive droughts that had once been fatal to their predecessors; capable of growing in saline soils; more nutritious; less toxic… and the list goes on.

It’s not just plants that can be genetically modified — scientists have already developed a GMO variant of Atlantic salmon. Thanks to the inclusion of gene fragments from fast-growing fish, this salmon reaches market weight much faster than its conventional counterpart.

The adoption of GMO organisms in agriculture has already proven to be economically successful. As early as 2010, the benefits were approaching $14 billion. Yields for farmers in developed countries rose by an average of 6% thanks to GMOs and by 29% in developing nations — in fact, small-scale farms in those countries have benefited the most from GMO adoption.

So why not simply celebrate these breakthroughs? Well, skepticism toward such a radical innovation is not without merit — have we fully accounted for all possible consequences? Could there be undesirable side effects? Churchill was right in saying that vigilance is the price of liberty. Still, that vigilance shouldn’t cross the line into paranoia.

A WAVE OF PANIC

From the moment GMOs first appeared, the public reaction has been extremely anxious — often resembling a creative contest among horror movie screenwriters. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was immediately invoked — the tale of a scientist who created a terrible monster. But isn’t conventional breeding capable of similar things?

Here’s another scary story: if we create plants that are resistant to certain herbicides, those herbicides will be used more frequently, leading to the emergence of superweeds that are also resistant. But this happens even without GMOs — so should we just stop fighting weeds altogether?

Genetically modified super-bacteria might seem even more dangerous than superweeds. Imagine, for example, an airborne version of the HIV virus — bone-chilling! But should anyone actually develop such a thing? Even as a weapon, such a virus would be far too dangerous, inevitably turning against its creators. Could such organisms emerge accidentally? Where is a single proven case?

And here’s another horror story: GMOs generate enormous profits for monopolies. But isn’t all economic activity aimed at making a profit? In fact, the emergence of GMOs has brought windfall profits to the creators of «organic» products — grown without any modern technologies, including GMOs. From 2002 to 2008, their sales surged to $52 billion — more than doubling. Should we go after them next?

Some of the more sentimental fears — like the claim that GMO crops taste worse — can be skipped altogether. It’s often the opposite. However, the claim that GMO plants cause cancer deserves real scrutiny. That’s a truly serious danger, and if it’s true, then simply rejecting such GMOs isn’t enough — we must eliminate any possibility of their existence on our planet. Such evidence cannot be ignored. And then — it appeared!

RAT RACE

Séralini took 200 rats and divided them into 20 groups of 10 — 10 male groups and 10 female. Three groups of each sex were fed GMO corn (comprising 11%, 22%, and 33% of their diet, respectively). Another three groups were given the same GMO corn but with varying amounts of the herbicide Roundup added to their food (GMO corn is designed to be resistant to Roundup). Three more groups received no GMO corn but were exposed to Roundup alone. And one group — the control — was given neither GMO corn nor herbicide. The rats were monitored over the course of two years — or at least those who lived that long were.

According to Séralini, the results were shockingly clear. In the control group, he claimed, 30% of the males and 20% of the females died. But in one of the groups fed GMO corn, 50% of the males and 70% of the females reportedly died. The difference was staggering. The conclusion seemed obvious: GMO corn causes cancer! In 2012, Séralini published his findings, and a flood of headlines hit the media: «French Scientists Prove GMOs Are Poison!»

Международный конкурс рассказов «ОДЕСССИАДА»

Soon after, Séralini released a book with a provocative title: We Are All Lab Rats. This stance was nothing new for him — he had long been a vocal opponent of GMOs and had published articles on the topic even before his now-famous experiment. His latest work came with greater backing — it was funded by major supermarket brands, including Auchan and Carrefour. And does it mean nothing that just days after Séralini’s publication, Carrefour launched an ad campaign with the slogan «GMO-Free»? Perhaps not if the research was conducted in good faith — but it’s curious nonetheless.

Even more striking was the impact this publication had at the governmental level. Under its influence, Kenya banned all GMOs entirely (though it lifted the ban in 2022). In Ukraine, for a time, the law required that all food products be labeled with information about the presence or absence of GMOs. Thankfully, the regulation was later softened — after all, it was hard not to smirk when buying salt or bottled water marked «GMO-Free.» What genes are there to modify in salt — or in water, for that matter? And yet, even today, such labels still appear on salt and water bottles… Yes, Séralini certainly stirred up considerable public alarm. But was it justified? Let’s take a closer look.

A DISAPPOINTING TURN

Once Séralini’s study came under scrutiny, a flood of questions quickly followed. For example, is a group of 10 rats enough? For 90-day toxicity tests, maybe. But for a two-year study (the typical lifespan of a rat)? Experts in statistical analysis immediately pointed out that the sample size needed to be several times larger — at least 50 rats per group — for the findings to be meaningful.

And there’s more: the rats used in the study were a specific strain — Sprague-Dawley — known for a high natural incidence of tumors. In fact, only about one-third of males and half of females from this strain typically live to the age of two. So, it was no surprise that in the control group, three males and two females died, while in one (!) of the test groups, five males and seven females died. Expressed in percentages, it sounds alarming — but that’s misleading.

Worse still, this spike in mortality occurred in just one group — the one fed the lowest amount of GMO corn. In the groups that received twice and three times as much GMO corn, mortality was actually lower than in the control group. Based on this, a more logical headline might have been that GMO corn prevents cancer rather than causes it!

Biologist Asya Kazantseva made a sharp observation: if you take 10 groups of 10 boys and tell nine groups to wear different rings and bracelets, leaving one as a control, after 50 years, at least one of those groups will statistically have a higher death rate. Should we then ban men from wearing jewelry? It’s the same flawed logic: one control group is compared to nine experimental groups, one turns out worse, and the others are conveniently ignored…

More and more questionable details emerged, eventually prompting an extraordinary step: the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, which had published Séralini’s study, retracted it about a year later — essentially declaring it scientifically invalid. As physiologist Mark Tester of the University of Adelaide summed it up: «What they showed is that old rats get cancer and die. That’s the only conclusion you can draw.»

SOCIETY IS SO EASY TO SCARE

And yet, the wave of panic didn’t subside — on the contrary, it crashed onto fertile ground. Scientific nuances rarely resonate with the general public, but fear? Fear is just the right fit. Especially when the danger in question is poorly understood. It’s hardly surprising that many people believe regular tomatoes have no genes, while transgenic ones do — and so they fear GMOs «just in case.»

As a palliative measure, GMO product labeling was proposed. In principle, aside from the cost, there’s little to object to: if you don’t want to eat GMO foods — don’t. Today, many countries legally require products containing GMOs to be labeled. Some consumers avoid them based on their personal beliefs, some are frightened just in case, and most don’t pay much attention.

According to survey data, 82% of Americans support mandatory labeling of GMO products. But curiously, the same survey found that 80% also support labeling products that contain DNA. But what food doesn’t contain DNA? Aside from salt and water, practically everything we eat is made of living matter — and living matter doesn’t exist without DNA. Economist Jayson Lusk, who presented the results, even joked that labels should include warnings that DNA is linked to many diseases and that pregnant women are at high risk of passing DNA to their children. Maybe not — or people might just stop eating altogether.

Some especially creative minds even promote the paleo diet — urging people to eat only what ancient humans ate to avoid the horrors of GMOs. But what about the fact that nearly all breeds of domestic animals and cultivated plant varieties were developed relatively recently — most just a few thousand years ago — and ancient humans had little to no contact with them? Sure, you could starve yourself in protest, but… aren’t there better options?

By the way, how do traditional institutions like the world’s major religions view GMOs? Quite positively! The Orthodox Union of Judaism has concluded that genetic modification has no bearing on a product’s kosher status. The Islamic Fiqh Council has ruled that foods grown from GMO seeds are entirely halal.

The Catholic Church not only approves of GMOs but also welcomes the fact that they help reduce poverty and hunger. Even the ultra-conservative Amish — who consider television, radio, and the internet sinful — have no issue using GMOs.

So, does this mean we should stop researching the potential dangers of GMOs? Absolutely not. These studies are always conducted with great care — as they should be. In theory, such risks are possible (the same applies to conventionally bred varieties, which should also be tested).

But so far, all studies that have been successfully replicated and confirmed come to the same conclusion: genetically modified organisms are no more dangerous than those developed through traditional breeding. At least, that’s what we find in research that doesn’t contain the obvious flaws seen in the work of Gilles-Éric Séralini.

LITERATURE

• Gilles‑Eric Séralini. Tous Cobayes !: GMOs, Pesticides, and Chemicals. — Flammarion Editions, 2012. — ISBN 978‑2‑081‑26236‑2.

• A. Panchin. The Sum of Biotechnology. — Corpus, 2015. — 432 pp.

When copying materials, please place an active link to www.huxley.media