In 1992, the USDA approved the first genetically modified crop. Since then, technology has evolved quickly to include a range of new GMO techniques that outpaced existing regulation. Today, products made from these new techniques are hitting grocery store shelves near you.
The early GMO landscape was sparsely populated. A few major agrochemical corporations led the work of inserting foreign DNA into commodity crops such as soy, corn and cotton. The resulting GMOs were mostly engineered to withstand weedkillers or to produce their own insecticide.
New GMOs are a different story, engineered for a broad spectrum of traits. New techniques are often cheaper and more accessible than traditional methods, with names you may recognize from news stories (i.e., CRISPR and TALEN gene editing, gene silencing and RNAi, and the chameleon-like synthetic biology). Generous venture capital funding is driving experimentation, fueling a dramatic increase in the number of companies acting in this space. Also, new GMOs don't necessarily contain foreign DNA in the finished product, which allows them a shorter path to market and bypasses established regulation. In the US, Bioengineered (BE) Food labeling laws fail to address many products of new techniques, leaving shoppers in the dark about whether or not there are new GMOs in their grocery cart.
Products made from new GMOs are showing up in virtually every aisle in the grocery store.
Synbio — from livestock to labs
Synthetic biology offers cheap and easy access to synthetic flavors, colors, fragrances, proteins, fats and more. Sybio can even convert plastic waste into vanilla flavoring. (At the Non-GMO Project, we're firm believers in waste reduction. But our enthusiasm stops short of eating plastic.) Cosmetics and body care products are incorporating synbio ingredients such as synthetic human collagen and spider silk proteins, and synthetic vitamin compounds are appearing in synbio supplements.
Synbio allows manufacturers to source many different compounds by programming genetically engineered microbes to convert a cheap ingredient into something they need. It's the ultimate low-rent alchemy.
GMO-based protein alternatives and animal-derived products, in particular, are booming. Raising livestock is resource-intensive, and industrial livestock farming can be famously destructive to the environment. Synthetic versions of animal-derived foods are all the rage.
One of the best-known GMO products in this category, the Impossible Burger, is made with GMO soy and the unique synbio "heme" that gives it blood-like juices and general "meatiness." The regulation and approval of heme has been contentious, with environmental groups advocating for a rigorous evaluation of this novel substance. However, regulatory bodies have been accommodating towards Impossible Foods. For example, when the Impossible Burger was first offered in restaurants in 2016, the FDA had not yet completed its assessment or approval of the product's safety and neither the company nor the FDA made the public aware of this fact.
New GMO techniques are also being used to genetically modify animals, and the meat has been approved for human consumption. A genetically modified pig was engineered by inserting human DNA and deleting a portion of the pig's DNA to create organs and tissue for medical uses that would be more acceptable to a human recipient. The pig has since been approved for both human consumption and for medical uses.
What happens when technology outpaces regulation?
GMOs have traditionally been created by inserting foreign DNA into an organism, which uses a type of bacteria that is considered a plant pest. To control the GMO's potential to become a plant pest, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Department (APHIS) has held the responsibility of regulating traditional GMOs. To be clear, APHIS regulation deals only with the GMO's potential to be a plant pest; it does not assess the crop's safety as part of the human food supply.
With new GMOs made from emerging techniques, the resulting organisms don't necessarily contain foreign DNA. Gene-editing techniques, for example, can modify genetic material within an organism, and synbio uses genetically engineered microbes to create new compounds through fermentation.
With technology outpacing regulation, new GMOs are not subject to sufficient oversight. When that happens, stuff can fall through the cracks. In the case of new GMOs, an entire bull nearly fell through the cracks.
In 2015, a pair of hornless bulls were born, created using the gene editing tool TALEN. A few years later, an FDA bioinformatician found a sequence of non-bovine DNA in the genome of one of the bulls, presumably from contamination during the editing process. It's important to note that the discovery of the non-bovine DNA was entirely accidental. It wasn't detected by the bull's developers, but by an external agency working on a routine data check. It's unknown exactly what impact, if any, that DNA sequence might have had, but that's the point of regulation — to mitigate the risks of new and novel creations.
This story illustrates the problem of not knowing what to look for: Had the FDA scientist randomly selected another data set for analysis, the non-bovine DNA would likely not have been discovered. Marching boldly into unknown territory, where guardrails have yet to be built because it is unknown territory, is extremely reckless.
Off-target effects and unintended consequences
New GMO techniques have been described in blushing terms, including "the future of food" and "precise, fast and inexpensive" — language that reflects the theory. The reality includes a pattern of unexpected outcomes that bring such optimism into question.
Let's look at gene editing, a new GMO technique that is widely heralded for its precision. However, that precision depends on cutting a DNA strand at a specific spot and nowhere else. In practice, edits occuring at locations other than the intended target are quite common. They are called "off-target effects," and they can interfere with the normal functioning of genes which can cause serious problems, such as mutations, disease, allergens or toxins.
Even when the cut is made at the correct spot, the outcome can still be unpredictable because of the complexity of how genes work. A single gene can be involved in several different and seemingly unrelated functions. Our understanding of how genes work is growing, but it's still limited. We see that play out in the narratives of some gene-editing experiments.
For example, a few years ago scientists were working to engineer a bull who would produce predominantly male offspring — a benefit in the beef industry because males convert energy into muscle mass more efficiently than females do. Looking for a section of DNA in the bovine genome where they could make a cut and insert genetic material without disrupting the necessary functions, they found what they thought was a promising section of "blank" DNA. However, once edits were made to that spot, the embryos died. Its function was unknown, but not unimportant.
According to Grist, "It was only blank because it was unexplored." In some as-yet-undiscovered way, that blank section of DNA was critical to the life of the growing organism.
Advertising the next generation of GMOs
The gulf between traditional and new GMOs affects more than regulation. Biotech developers are also exploiting it for marketing. The negative public perception of GMOs is widely known — most shoppers are aware of the GMO issue, and many choose to avoid GMOs at the store. Some brands are trying to distance themselves from those negative associations, marketing new GMOs as "non-GMO," even while relying on biotechnology to create novel products.
In their FAQs, Perfect Day — developers of synbio animal whey protein and the vegan ice cream it's made with — poses the question, "Does your protein contain GMOs?"
They provide this answer: "No, animal-free protein does not contain GMOs…. Genetic engineering is part of our process, but genetically modified organisms or any detectable genetic material is not present in our protein."
The response seems carefully crafted to focus on the absence of genetically modified DNA in the finished product and minimize the role of genetic engineering in the product's creation.
To avoid GMOs, look for the Butterfly!
New products made with emerging techniques are entering the market across categories, and most new GMOs are unregulated and unlabeled.
The Non-GMO Project monitors new biotech developments as well as their commercial availability so you don't have to. Our dedicated research team has seen a dramatic increase in the number of biotechnology developers — the number of companies we’re monitoring has grown nearly more than 300% in the last 5 years.
While the USDA's Bioengineered (BE) Food labeling law requires disclosures on some GMO products, it is not comprehensive. New GMOs in particular risk being overlooked because the law requires detectible modified genetic material in the finished product to trigger mandatory labeling. Products made from new techniques don't necessarily leave modified material behind, and some new GMOs are currently untestable.
New GMOs threaten the natural products industry and the movement toward regenerative agriculture in part because they are often marketed as "natural" or given dubious sustainability claims. For us folks at the Non-GMO Project, new GMOs inspire an eerie sense of déja vu — traditional GMOs entered the market 30 years ago with some of the same promises.
In the absence of meaningful regulation and reliable labeling, the work we do at the Non-GMO Project is more important than ever. Through our rigorous and evolving Standard and the continuous research that informs it, we support your right to choose whether or not to consume GMOs.