11. OMGs!! GMOs!! ABCDEs!! M-O-U-S-E

OMGs!! GMOs!! ABCDEs!! M-O-U-S-E!! 11

I’m guessing that the last chapter probably left you feeling that there’s a lot of confusion and misinformation concerning the use of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides. The same comment could easily be made about the terms genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified organism (GMO). First of all, there’s a tremendous amount of confusion just about the use of these two terms. Do they mean the same thing or is there an accepted technical definition of each of them? That’s a good question. So far, there doesn’t seem to be a terribly good answer.

In fact, GMO and GE are so frequently used interchangeably that making a case for the differences between them feels a bit like splitting hairs. Do they really say anything different? I’d say yes, and so might some others, but remember that you are currently living in the world according to Christy Hemenway...so what I’m going to tell you is, of necessity, weighted heavily toward my own opinion, since it just didn’t prove easy to find any reliable source that one could call “technically correct.”

With that in mind, here’s how I’d use the two terms: Genetically modified would tend to denote a plant or an animal whose genetics have been purposely guided over time using natural sexual reproductive processes. This could be likened to breeding roses for a particular color, or pumpkins

for size or horses for speed. It happens by pairing members of a species that share a desirable trait with the intent of increasing the instances of that trait, and the trait is expressed in the offspring of those members. This process is the basis of the “survival of the fittest” mechanism, and over time its outcomes are seen as evolution.

“Genetically engineered” refers to a more industrial process that forcibly incorporates the genes of organisms that are not sexually compatible, using recombinant DNA techniques. Genetically engineered crops are purposely created, or engineered, by intentional manipulation of the genes of the organism. The resulting plants would not occur in nature without this highly technical manipulation. So genetic engineering is a form of genetic modification, but genetic modification is not necessarily genetic engineering.

Under the heading of genetic engineering, we find Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt crops. The primary argument in favor of these is that due to the plant’s altered genes, which incorporate a soil bacterium that causes the plant to produce Bt toxin internally, we should be able to use fewer insecticides. Bt crops have been modified genetically so that the plant produces a toxin that kills pests by essentially blowing up their stomachs. However, the Bt toxin produced by the GE plant is much more concentrated than Bt sprayed topically, so in reality, the use of Bt pesticides has actually increased exponentially.

Agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto originally claimed that Bt would be destroyed as it traversed the digestive system of humans, and so could be said to pose no health risk. This was proven false when Bt toxin was found to bioaccumulate in the human body. Research suggests that Bt toxin may also cause immune responses that have been associated with allergies and infections.

And stop me if you’ve heard this one before—but it turns out that the pests in question have developed resistance to the Bt toxin. Now instead of being able to use fewer pesticides, these resistant pests require the use of more and more pesticides in order to be effective. Hmmm...

Other examples of genetic engineering are the herbicide-resistant

or “Roundup Ready” soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and alfalfa. These plants have been modified to make them impervious to the effects of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. This means the farmer can spray their field with it to kill weeds and unwanted plants, but the desired crop is unaffected. Gross, huh?

No wonder there is such a pitched legal battle occurring today concerning the labeling of such crops. If we were reminded to worry about the possible unintended consequences of genetic modification or genetic engineering every time we purchased a genetically engineered product—much like the tobacco industry was concerned would happen— surely we would want to quit!

Honeybees engender a deep passion among beekeepers. I would venture to say that there is no such thing as a beekeeper that does not love their bees. It is easy to become emotional about a subject like losing the honeybee, especially with the undercurrent of suspicion the public carries toward the actions of the pesticide industry. It can be difficult to have a thoughtful conversation with such impassioned believers on both sides of the issue.

Because I am a beekeeper, and because my “crunchygranola” gene is bigger than my head, I have spent considerable reading time digging into the subjects of organics and GMOs and pesticides and cancer and vaccines and raw milk and corporate money and Monsanto and Bayer and Syngenta...only to quickly find myself drowning in the worst case of overwhelm since I first wanted to learn to keep bees in top bar hives and went looking on Google.

The internet is an important and influential force in the world we now live in. As a method of sharing information about things you like, what you’re doing or whom you’re doing it with, it is amazing. Blog posts and social media

Figure 11.1. Labels matter!

Credit: Justlabelit.org.

have created avenues of self-expression that have elevated op-ed to (what passes for) journalism. I know; I run over 50 sponsored Facebook groups—a global group, and a group for all 50 states, as well as for several countries—in order to create a venue for top bar hive beekeepers to connect. Use these to find others, but remember that sharing links on Facebook and becoming enraged by the comments left as criticisms is no way to have an intelligent conversation.

So...yes, it gets confusing. You’re not the only one feeling that way. The only solace I can offer, and it’s a thin one, is to encourage you to always “consider the source.” An adamant impassioned beekeeper, while having a huge heart in the right place, may not be the best source of upto-date information. Then again, some of the best vehicles for creating smoke screens and spreading misinformation are the very professionally produced blog posts and quasi-informational websites—backed by the very people who are marketing the products you most distrust. Seek out peer-reviewed sources and writers with credentials and motivations in the right place. These will take you further than social media sensationalism any day of the week.