Gene Editing is GMO -- Contrary to What Governments, the Media and Companies are Telling Us

(It is just a matter of time before avocados and every other plant and animal on this planet are both gene-edited and patented, with almost no government oversight.)

How Organic Insider operates: We accept no advertising, we have no paywalls and we make our newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider supporting our work, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.

In the minds of U.S. consumers, when it comes to food, there is no difference between genetic modification and genetic engineering. GMOs and GE-foods are one and the same.

Yet, as novel gene-edited foods (such as the Arctic® apple that prevents browning) seem to be gaining a great deal of traction, consumers will have little to no idea that these are gene-edited. For example, Arctic® apple’s FAQ page makes no mention of gene editing or genetic engineering.

Furthermore, a growing number of media outlets and companies that sell these gene-edited foods are now positioning them as Non-GMO, giving off the false impression to consumers that they are not genetically engineered, something that is absolutely and categorically not the case.

But it gets worse.

Completely beholden to the ag-biotech industry, countries around the world, most notably Canada as of late, are complicit in this deception. They are recognizing gene editing as Non-GMO as well, only adding to the confusion.

(Last month, Wired wrote about the gene-edited mustard greens from Monsanto-backed Pairwise.)

Traditional GMOs, such as genetically-engineered corn, soy or canola, take DNA from bacteria and insert it into a different organism. It is transgenic, from one organism to another.

On the other hand, gene editing does not necessarily take foreign DNA and insert it into a different organism. Instead, it uses modern biotechnology tools, often CRISPR or TALEN, to rearrange or delete a seed’s existing genetic code to achieve a particular outcome.

And because gene-edited foods are not transgenic, companies have taken the liberty to assert that it is not GMO. Minnesota-based Calyxt, which produces a gene-edited soybean oil, defends its Non-GMO status by claiming that what it is doing could theoretically be achieved with traditional crossbreeding.

Consumer watchdog groups have a serious issue with this assertion.

“The argument that a gene-edited crop is not a GMO is factually incorrect. Statements such as these are misleading and misinforming consumers,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Scientist, Advocacy at Consumer Reports.

“Gene editing is a form of biotechnology, and when biotechnology is applied to living organisms, the result is a GMO,” put forth Megan Westgate, executive director of The Non-GMO Project. “Companies that make gene-edited foods have tried to apply for Non-GMO Project verification in the past and were denied.”

“The assertion that gene-edited crops are Non-GMO is nothing short of hijacking the term for commercial purposes,” echoed Jeffrey Smith, founder and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose organization has been warning consumers of the serious risks of gene-edited foods for many years.

Unfortunately, the false description of gene-edited foods as “Non-GMO” is just one of many concerns.

No Labeling:

Under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, gene-edited foods are not required to be labeled.

So, consumers may very well have no idea if they are eating gene-edited foods or not.

Lack of Regulation:

Due to the fact that almost all gene-edited foods do not fit the USDA’s narrow definition of a “plant pest” risk — unlike traditional GMOs, such as GE-corn and GE-soy — they are able to completely bypass USDA regulation.

The FDA has a superficial safety review process for gene-edited foods, but this is a voluntary process, something that is industry-friendly but creates tremendous risk for consumers.

“The FDA should be requiring that all gene-edited foods undergo a safety approval process, but that is not happening. At the very least, these products should not be on the market before going through the agency’s voluntary safety review,” said Michael Hansen.

Yet, because it is a voluntary process, companies have zero obligation to confer with the FDA.

For example, Monsanto-backed Pairwise just launched its gene-edited leafy greens into the marketplace, and according to the FDA database, it has yet to complete its voluntary safety consultation. Organic Insider reached out to the company to see if it would be going through with this voluntary process, and our inquiry was not answered.

With essentially no USDA or FDA oversight, the potential danger of gene-edited crops to consumers is massive.

“CRISPR labs can be purchased for under $2,000, and I can envision a time when kids make gene-edited foods for their school science fairs and serve them to the public, all with the false understanding that they are safe and predictable,” warned Jeffrey Smith.

Not Accurate or Precise:

Advocates for gene editing will constantly espouse how accurate and precise this form of genetic engineering is, but that appears to be anything but the case.

In a 2020 article published in Nature, it was reported that “CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem,” as three studies revealed how the process can make large, unwanted changes to the genome at or near the target site.

A similar result was found at Recombinetics, a Minnesota-based gene-editing company that makes hornless cattle.

FDA scientists discovered that its genome contained a stretch of bacterial DNA, including a gene conferring antibiotic resistance.

This “unintended” DNA addition went undetected by the company, even as it touted the animals as 100% bovine and assailed the FDA for saying the animals needed to be regulated at all.

Given these very, very grave mistakes, one might think that the FDA or USDA would step in and take a much more cautionary approach to gene-edited crops, but the ag-biotech industry and its lobbyists have far too much power to allow that to happen.

Possibility of Contamination:

Similar to the genetically-engineered alfalfa contamination episodes, the possibility exists that gene-edited crops could do the same to organic and conventional farms, and according to the Non-GMO Project’s Megan Westgate, the risk of this happening is “significant.”

DISRUPTING EVOLUTION

The gene editing of our food supply is not driven by a desire to improve nutrition or feed impoverished communities. Rather, it is all about patenting and owning the food supply, making money and amassing power.

What these companies seem to forget or completely disregard is that we are all here for an extremely short period of time, but these gene-edited foods and the unintended consequences that result from these science experiments will be here forever and will certainly be felt three to four generations down the line, leaving our children’s grandchildren with an absolute albatross of a food supply.

And they’ll be asking themselves, “How in the world could these people have done this to us?”

With gratitude, Max Goldberg, Founder