In my writing at Biofortified, I often find myself debunking myths about GMOs and reviewing poor quality papers. But over the years, there has been a trend to use weak data to support genetic engineering, too. Some questionable claims are made by the crop developers themselves.
Two claims in particular stand out: 1) decreasing the amount of acrylamide when frying the Innate potato or White Russet meaningfully reduces cancer risk and 2) increasing the amount of antioxidants in crops is healthier, such as in the pink pineapple or purple tomato (links go to critical reviews).
Benefits supported by weak data
There’s little evidence to support the idea that the acrylamide that is created when potatoes are fried is harmful. Acrylamide in large amounts is known to be harmful. However, one can easily argue that the fat/calories that you’d have to eat in order to be harmed by the tiny amounts of acrylamide in the potatoes will kill you first.
Additionally, there’s little evidence to support the idea that increasing antioxidants in your diet is healthier. Undoubtedly, there are benefits to increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables that we eat, or to increasing the diversity in your diet. However, there’s not much evidence to support the idea that eating fruits and vegetables that are more “colorful” and therefore richer in antioxidants is better.
Despite the weak data, I see GMO supporters unnecessarily using the argument that these GMOs have health benefits time and time again.
Origins of weak claims
My perspective is that these crops were developed at a time when the science suggested that the traits would be helpful. Think about the antioxidant craze that existed 5-10 years ago. Now, science has advanced and the body of evidence suggests that increased antioxidants don’t necessarily prevent disease. 5-10 years ago, we also thought that acrylamide in potatoes might be harmful. But today? Not so much.
For a time, there was fear of acrylamide in fried foods, particularly since it falls under California’s prop 65. Any restaurant that fries potatoes in California must carry a sign stating that there are chemicals on site that are known to cause cancer or toxicity. As such, some food vendors may have been interested in White Russet potatoes as a means to remove the sign from their premises. But today, these signs are so ubiquitous that they are ignored by nearly everyone.
Additionally, there are so many chemicals that now fall under prop 65, that even if acrylamide is removed from french fries, there will surely be something else on the site that will require the warning, like coffee. Many people who decry prop 65 will correctly highlight how the label is meaningless because it warns against hazards and is not based on risk. Yet, in the same breath, they will say how the White Russet can help decrease levels of acrylamide and prevent cancer.
Showcase real benefits, not weak ones
If a company wants to make orange brussel sprouts or black watermelons, they have the right to do so. Once the crop goes through the regulatory process, the developer can grow it and try to sell it. Some GMO crops will have environmental benefits, health benefits, or benefits to farmers. But not all of them have to.
If a crop is more sustainable or healthier, then the importance of the trait should be stressed. The White Russet, for example, will have a non-browning trait in addition to the reduced-acrylamide trait. There’s good reason to purchase the potatoes to help decrease food waste. But if a GM crop doesn’t have a beneficial trait, if the trait introduced is purely cosmetic, that’s OK too.
These crops are as safe than as their non-GMO counterparts. They make our food supply more diverse and more interesting.
Sometimes a pink pineapple is just a pink pineapple. And who knows? Maybe kids will eat more pineapples because they’ll get a kick out of it. Or maybe some fancy chef will win the final challenge in Chopped because they’ll make pink pineapple upside-down cake. You have to assume that whatever company is making the pink pineapple has done sufficient market analysis to know that there’s a market for these traits.
To those of us who take the time to correct misinformation on GMOs: using weak data to support these crops is not only unnecessary, but also a tactic used by those who claim GMOs cause harm.