GMO Myths and Truths

3.9 Myth: Genetic engineering will deliver more nutritious crops
Truth: No GM crop that is more nutritious than its non-GM
counterpart has been commercialised and some GMOs are less
nutritious
GM proponents have long claimed that genetic
engineering will deliver healthier and more
nutritious “biofortified” crops. However, no such
nutritionally enhanced GM foods are available in
the marketplace. In some cases, GM foods have
been found to be less nutritious than their non-
GM counterparts, due to unexpected effects of the
genetic engineering process.
Examples include:
● GM soy had 12–14% lower levels of cancerfighting
isoflavones than non-GM soy. 119
● Canola (oilseed rape) engineered to contain
vitamin A in its oil had much reduced vitamin
E and an altered oil-fat composition, compared
with the non-GM control. 120
● Experimental GM rice varieties had unintended
major nutritional disturbances compared with
non-GM counterparts, although they were
grown side-by-side in the same conditions.
The structure and texture of the GM rice grain
was affected and its nutritional content and
value were dramatically altered. The variation
ranged from 20 to 74% for amino acids, from
19 to 38% for fatty acids, from 25 to 57% for
vitamins, from 20 to 50% for nutritionally
important trace elements, and 25% for protein.
GM rice varieties variously showed markedly
decreased levels of vitamin E, protein, and
amino acids. The authors said that their
findings “provided alarming information with
regard to the nutritional value of transgenic
rice” and showed that the GM rice was not
substantially equivalent to non-GM. 121
3.9.1. Golden Rice: More hype than
hope?
The best-known attempt to nutritionally improve
a GM crop is beta-carotene-enriched “Golden
Rice”. 122,123 The crop is intended for use in poor
countries in the Global South, where vitamin A
deficiency causes blindness, illness, and deaths.
However, despite over a decade’s worth of
headlines hyping Golden Rice as a miracle crop, it
is still not available in the marketplace.
GM proponents blame excessive regulation
and anti-GM activists for delaying the
commercialisation of Golden Rice. But the real
reasons for the delay seem to be basic research
and development problems. The first Golden Rice
variety had insufficient beta-carotene content and
would have needed to be consumed in kilogram
quantities per day to provide the required daily
vitamin A intake. 122 As a result, a totally new GM
rice variety had to be generated with much higher
beta-carotene content. 123
Also, the process of backcrossing Golden Rice
with varieties that perform well in farmers’ fields
in order to ensure a viable product has taken many
years. 124,125 A 2008 article in the journal Science
said that there was still a “long way to go” in the
backcrossing process. 124
It has taken over a decade to develop Golden
Rice. Yet as of 2012, field trials have not been
completed to ensure that it grows successfully
in local conditions. Nor has it been tested in
toxicological feeding trials on animals to establish
whether it is safe to eat. Nevertheless, the rice
was fed to human subjects (adults and children)
in experiments conducted by researchers at
Tufts University, Boston, MA. This was not a
safety study but an efficacy test to see whether
the human subjects assimilated sufficient
beta-carotene and converted it to vitamin A.
The efficacy test was conducted without basic
toxicological testing having been carried out.
This was condemned as a breach of medical ethics
and the Nuremberg Code (established after
World War II to prevent a repeat of inhumane
Nazi experiments on humans) by a group of
international scientists in a letter of protest to the
Tufts researchers. 126
In contrast with the problematical Golden Rice,
inexpensive and effective methods of combating
GMO Myths and Truths 57