Organic GMOs & Other Sins

What’s your preference:

Food that is organic, or not organic?
Genetically modified (engineered), or not?
How about neither genetically modified nor organic?
What about both organic AND genetically modified??

The first two are pretty common questions, while the latter two aren’t often posed. I think this is partly due to lack of awareness or even poor understanding about the terms, but also largely due to existing policy and regulation, at least in Canada. Some people believe that within the continuum of macro & micro phenomena of the natural world, deliberate and precise crop modifications at the genomic level should be prohibited, MUST be linked to pesticide use, AND are opposite to the relatively random modifications achieved via traditional breeding techniques.

This prohibitive thinking can come at a cost: greater proportion of income spent on food…omitting some foods out of the diet due to cost, possibly reducing nutrient quality intake… becoming a laggard nation by signalling to businesses that we are not willing to keep up with technology… or even inadvertently perpetuating fear mongering agendas to result in an ignorant population.

Here’s a question I’ve struggled with for a long time: why are those that are pro-organic (and, primarily due concerns around pesticide use) also not the first to embrace GMO technology? Technically, these terms are mostly complementary, not opposites.

In other words, I believe “organic GMOs” should be not only accepted, but actively pursued.

I know that probably seems absurd to most people but I’m going to try to explain my perspective below. If you’re unfamiliar with general plant breeding principles, it might be helpful to first read my other post describing the breeding process or search lots of great videos explaining it on other platforms. Keep in mind there are many layers to this topic, some outside the scope here, but I’m going to try to clearly break it down step-by-step.

Starting very generally, pretty much all the plant food you eat was processed from commercial crop varieties. Of the dozens of varieties registered and available in any given year, a farmer must then assess performance of that variety (either from past experience, or from accumulated field trial data provided by researchers), consider if the data is relevant for the farm’s geography/soil/latitude, as well as seed availability, production economics, & other production implications, while staying aware of what market demands are while usually trying to predict what prices will be in the coming year. For example (and assuming prices aren’t contractually locked-in with a buyer prior to producing it), does the buyer of his grain want certified organic grain, or not? This question in particular is relevant to this topic, since production practices of the crop in the field are largely determined by those intended markets, especially in terms of the land being used, as well as pesticides used.

Here’s the point I want to make: think about the chronological order of everything describe so far. The way the crop is grown in the field determines whether or not the food made from it can be labelled as “organic” or not. “Non-GMO” is dependent upon the way the genetics came together PRIOR TO variety registration, years BEFORE the variety is grown in the field. Yet, the terms “organic” and “non-GMO” are used interchangeably or inseparably.

Why?

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say you’re shopping for a new sports car, and your only “must-have” is that it must be powered by a BMW engine. Logically, it would make sense to start looking at BMW cars, but actually you can get other brands with BMW engines: Morgan (brand) out of the UK is a distinct brand but actually uses BMW engines:

• 

• 

Morgans also happen to be mostly hand-built, use wooden (!) body panels, and their factories are mostly old brick buildings. BMW uses much automation/robotics and their factories are more modern and constructed differently.

• 

• 

If your only must-have is the BMW engine, do you really care how the car around it was produced, or what the factory walls are comprised of in which the car was made? Probably not. I mean, the Morgan is an absolute WORK OF ART on wheels, but because of the production process behind it (such as incurring labour costs of more hours/time/resources per output unit, or different quality/availability of materials) differs, the price tag is about 3x higher than a BMW. All that aside, there are actually DOT regulations in North America (such as bumper height) that are not met thus they cannot even be legally sold here.

Compare that analogy to a grocery shopper where their only must-have is canola oil. One can buy both GMO as well as non-GMO canola oil (different ‘factory’ types) as well as organic or non-organic canola oil (construction of the ‘vehicle’), but the sought-after thing (the oil, or the engine) is virtually identical.

Let’s dive deep into the topic of “organic GMOs.” It is not a typo, I literally mean the organic production of GMO crops. A widely-held but inaccurate perception of agricultural practices / food production is that they must be EITHER one, OR the other, of these two categories:

But this is a more accurate way of viewing it:

In other words – and in most cases – the method of production (growing the crop) used in the field is independent of the method used to establish the genetics of that plant (from which the food or ingredients are sourced). What is more, the way that the genetics were assembled in the crop must always PRECEDE production of the crop commodity that later becomes food. Maybe obvious, but these often get muddled when staring at labels on the grocery store shelf.

Because the genome – all genes of the plant – is the “blueprint” for the plant, genetic changes can influence a huge diversity of traits, including (but not strictly or limited to) things like herbicide (such as glyphosate) tolerance. Conversely, not all herbicide tolerance is the result of “genetic modification” techniques either.

One more disclaimer. Yes, I have worked for one of the “big companies” and yes, I have also worked in government alongside incredibly smart people that were NOT secretly funded by Monsanto contrary to what some camps ceaselessly believe (again – this post is not sponsored by anyone). Then again, that’s what a spy would say, isn’t it? But guess what? Neither of those groups have any interest in talking about this topic. Guess why? I bet you guessed it’s because there’s no money in it. That’s only half an answer though, because (communist states aside), profit in a capitalist market is the by-product of supplying a demand with a desired – and affordable – product…a product that consumers – you and me – are willing to pay for.

So to ask the question again: why don’t private companies or government have an interest in talking about “organic GMOs”? It’s because there’s zero demand. But why is there zero demand? I think it’s because consumers – people that trade their money for a desired product – are completely unaware that it’s even an option, it’s been continually cancelled out of existence, and thus nobody is asking for such products. I hope to provide some new info for you to consider, whether you’re a consumer or an industry player. In my opinion, organic GMOs have massive potential: to improve nutrition, minimize pesticide use, quickly mitigate production challenges related to climate change, increase carbon sequestration and minimize environmental damage of climate change, reduce costs along the value chain (thus reducing cost of groceries), open up an entire new branch of research, and employ highly-skilled people.

It also might be helpful to check out my post about the central dogma of molecular biology prior to reading this one. Below, I’m going to use a weird-looking square version of a Venn diagram to avoid awkward gaps between boundaries of overlapping circular borders of a normal Venn. I’m going to start broad, then increasingly narrow down the details, adding layer upon layer in the diagram. There will be 3 major “layers” to this process as well:

1) Origins
2) Breeding & variety development
3) Field production

Here we go.

1) Origins

Unless an entire genome has been synthetically assembled de novo (by manually connecting millions of independent nucleotides and inserting it into an empty cell resulting in a viable life form)… or, by manually editing codons of an existing genome with alternative sequences with the same function… OR, unless a living organism has somehow spontaneously manifested itself out of the “aether,” any organism – plant or animal, “organic” or not – must be derived from existing genetics. In other words, in plants, “parent” genetics have to come together and produce the next generation. For the sake of this post, I’m going to represent this starting “pool” of genetics using a giant grey square:

This is the first major “layer’ to this discussion. So again, this grey square blob contains all the compatible genetics in nature that could possibly be combined & recombined to produce the baby plants of the next generation. (The label at the top refers to two differing and naturally-occurring plant reproductive systems, but regardless, this square still represents all available genetics). In the case of GMOs, cisgenic sources would be grouped into this pool. I didn’t show it here because this illustration will become really busy as it is already, but transgenic would be a small, different shade of grey square off to the side (since those genetic modifications do become compatible but technically come from a non-compatible source organism, and make up a very small proportion of all genetic material available.

2) Breeding & Variety Development

Next, let’s look at the 2nd major layer to this process (As we move inwards towards the centre of this diagram, we’re moving further along the breeding process, step by step, until we reach the new plant variety. (The letters A, B, C and D refer to various routes to get to that end point, which I’ll summarize at the end, but for now just ignore them). Note that sizes of any category are not necessarily proportional to the real amount of material established through either method, it’s just to illustrate the relationships.):

Since the grey represents any and all possible genetic resources from which the genetics of a new plant variety can be established, any technique, whether it’s traditional breeding, or “GMO,” all must be derived from those resources. Those genetic resources used, regardless of the methods, are thus a sub-set of that whole pool of resources available. During this process, tools to enhance the breeding process, such as MAS described earlier, may be used. (Another example might the general category of gene-editing, including techniques such as CRISPR, which are not consistently considered GMO across all regulatory jurisdictions at this time.)

Even though a plant may be the recipient of novel genes, or of engineered changes within its existing genome, these still make up a very small percentage of the entire genome of the plant. Therefore, selection must still be carried out in the field as it would be with traditional breeding. A GMO is not a completely unnatural, 100% fabricated or synthetic thing; it is actually a “mostly-the-same” variant of the non-GMO counterpart.

Let’s look at Brassica napus, for example. This oilseed crop has 848,200,303 total nucleotide base pairs (the subunit of genes, and the level at which modifications can be engineered) and a large proportion of varieties in North America are “GMO.” Now let’s compare a GMO version of Brassica napus, an InVigor™ variety: one transgene enables it to be unaffected by a herbicide called glufosinate, and a second one that influences fertility in the plant. The former is comprised of 171 base pairs, the latter of 90 base pairs. In total, these GMO alterations – relative to the wild type progenitor – account for 0.00003077% difference. I’d argue the proteins expressed by the genes should be the focus of any opponent to such technologies, but even those products of the modifications are a minuscule proportion of total expression in the plant.

The lighter shading here represents the breeder selection for traits, such as that glufosinate tolerance, or something as straightforward as the height of the plant. Since any breeding program has multiple generations of populations at any given time, there’s a lot of ‘back and forth’ as far as activities go, but this depicts the progress further towards the end goal of establishing a variety:

These activities will be pretty much the same regardless of whether or not “GMO” techniques have been used, since as mentioned, GMO is not an entirely new thing, it is mostly the same as a non-GMO variant and must still be grown in the field like any other plant. Aside from the new trait(s) of a GMO that result from novel genes introduced, the GMO variant will respond to environmental pressures the same as any other version of it will. A few common traits selected for are highlighted below (the dotted outlines represent particulars that may be regulated differently in different jurisdictions, can can’t be considered “definitely” a traditional or a GMO tool/process, technically speaking):

This part is super interesting, because herbicide tolerance (HT) traits are commonly assumed to always be GMO, but actually they can be established in plants via either traditional breeding, or applying GMO techniques (genetic engineering). HT gives the crop the ability to go unaffected after being sprayed by a specific herbicide which would otherwise kill it.

I’ll use canola as an example again here. There are 3 main categories of HT canola: glufosinate-resistant (GF), glyphosate-resistant (GP), and imidazolinone-resistant (IMI). All are HT, all have functional differences relative to the wild type progenitor, however GF and GP are “GMO” while IMI is not “GMO” since it was established via traditional breeding. In other words, a couple transgenes were deliberately introduced into parent plants chosen from the starting pool (the grey square) giving the GF and GP varieties this HT ability; in contrast, mutagenesis was used for the starting material in preceding generations for the IMI non-GMO varieties. Mutagenesis involves exposing the population to a mutagen that deliberately induces random mutations (genetic disruptions, resulting in new or different traits) in individuals of the population, from which those with ideal traits (including HT) are selected and further generations are derived from those ones. The mutagen agent is of course not carried forward in subsequent generations, but the resulting mutations (and thus resulting traits) are.

3) Field production

This next part is the third major phase of this concept: field production. This is the part where you see farm equipment operating in the field each year. There are two production methods that farmers can choose: conventional, or organic (but the decision will have been made months before planting and/or before acquiring seed). Conventional is a general category referring to the most modern technology (in crop production, or with field equipment), whereas “organic” is a technical term described in the Organic Products Regulations within the Canada Agricultural Products Act.

Now keep in mind this is TECHNICALLY speaking: put viable seeds in the ground, and they will grow; the field conditions don’t really care about whether generations previous to that seed were bred using traditional or genetic modification techniques. This is why the green representing field production practices overlaps with both breeding approaches. Here’s that section outlined in the line-dash:

But, because this is regulation (i.e. power of law), this is the part where the value chain becomes somewhat incongruent with technical realities. Remember the chronological order in which these events must all happen. Up to this point, everything follows a logical flow, but suddenly one of them (the dark green, outlined shaded area) is backwards…

I’m not sure where to start with this aspect. First, let’s figure out why “organic” is distinct and why it’s a regulated term.

Section 1.4 of Organic production systems: General principles and management standards clearly prohibits “materials or techniques in organic production and preparation…all products of and materials from genetic engineering (GE), as defined in this standard, and as specified in 4.1.3, 5.1.2 and 6.2.1 of CAN/CGSB-32.311;”. This is current as of March 2021! It defines genetic engineering to produce GMOs as “artificial manipulation of living cells for the purpose of altering its genome constitutes genetic engineering and refers to a set of techniques from modern biotechnology by which the genetic material of an organism is changed in a way that does not occur other than through traditional breeding by multiplication or natural recombination.” The genome is considered an indivisible entity; artificial technical/physical insertions, deletions, or rearrangements of elements
of the genome constitute genetic engineering.

Lastly, let’s touch on pesticides. This is the final square overlay, shown on the next illustration.

Neither contemporary systems are perfect in this context, since there are a plethora of pesticides approved for both conventional and organic systems. Of course, toxicology will differ for each but regardless, for registration & use in Canada, they are all subject to the same extensive regulatory process of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada. Now to the inconsistency.

Now, look at the four letters labelling the pathways around the sides (A, B, C & D). All three, A, B, and D are technically possible, AND “allowed.” But look at path C: plants are bred from the starting pool using genetic engineering techniques, and could very well be grown in the field with organic production methods, since production occurs AFTER the genetics are established in a variety. Sure, you could argue there would be no point to doing that, if the assumption was that all GMO traits are herbicide tolerance, and thus to benefit from the modifications, the appropriate herbicide must be applied. However, HT is only one of many real and theoretical traits that can be conferred to an oRgaNiSm.

Alright… one last layer to this all, as if it weren’t complex enough. A sub-category of conventionally-produced crops are those with a HT trait and thus a specific herbicide is to be used in the field with them.

Actually, this concept was already introduced earlier at the trait selection step in the 2nd phase of this process. To date, there are only HT varieties compatible with conventional production of GMO varieties + application of conventional herbicides (path D), and conventional production of non-GMO varieties + application of conventional herbicides (path A). Technically, path B could be possible and permitted under current regulation, assuming there were an organically-approved herbicide to which the crop variety were tolerant, but I’m unaware of any. And HT under path C of course can never be reached within current regulation.

It’s a bit tricky to depict in an illustration. to select for a trait that confers herbicide tolerance, the plants at that step of the breeding process has to be exposed to a specific herbicide (when the herbicide to be used is already defined), or to be exposed to a spectrum of different herbicides (different chemistries)

Let’s put it all together. Here’s the full illustration with all the details added:

And guess what: the fundamental genetic ‘building blocks’ are identical whether the plant is GMO or not. Whether you’re eating the plant’s carbohydrates, proteins or fats, the body therefore isn’t concerned about how they were assembled. Either the material is digested / broken down and used in the body, or dissembled and excreted and eventually becomes ‘fertilizer’ for more things to grow, thus adding to the…

!

Is it likely that “organic GMOs” will become commonplace? I don’t know. Considering the information presented on the Canada Organic Trade Association (COTA), the national association which “…protects, promotes and builds information on Canada’s organic sector,” they seem to be vehemently opposed to anything GMO, stating that “Genetically engineered products (GMOs) are prohibited in organic production. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds…” Actually, I can get on board with most of what they actively promote, let’s take a look:

Like I mentioned, much of this is great, I’m sure almost all primary producers would be in favour of the checkmarks in the list. A couple general considerations though, I don’t know if they purport all synthetic pesticides are toxic, or are concerned with only those synthetics that are also toxic (but it’s unclear by which metrics toxicity is being measured). Another blanket approach to prohibit synthetic fertilizers seems questionable, since there will be so much variation across a region and even a farm; I think it would be important to consider the urgency of soil remedies needed, as well as compare a whole-picture “lifecycle analysis” regarding net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fertilizer production, transport, application, release, & soil retention between both an organic and non-organic system (similar to how GHG emission calculations are made with biofuels derived from various plant sources in different regions around the globe). Maybe these numbers exist, if you know of any publications, please add a link in the comments!

But, in my opinion (as described throughout this post), their prohibition of all GMOs is over-reaching and not well founded. Even if a producer wanted to grow a GMO variety that was indeed a herbicide-tolerant system, they wouldn’t necessarily need to use that prohibited herbicide (although it’s unlikely a producer would do that, since they’d be paying for a technology that they wouldn’t be able to take advantage of… unless there were massive yield advantages or unique pest resistance aside from the herbicide-tolerance, I suppose, although I’ve never heard of anyone doing this). My point is that I suppose it makes sense for an organics association to dictate what/what type of pesticides can be used to establish a specific production environment, but for the same association to take any stance on GMOs is inappropriate. To reiterate: I am NOT saying safety/practicality/feasibility of genetic engineering should not be examined; I am saying this should be an independent association/effort rather than distorting interest via the lens of a specific production system.

Supporting genetic engineering to optimize field production of crops (while disconnecting GMO status from obligatory herbicide application) isn’t new, nor is it my idea. One old example is “Bt corn.” In this case, one gene from a bacteria (called Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt for short – originally registered in the USA 60 years ago (!) as a biopesticide) that is naturally found in soil was introduced into a corn variety’s genome. Why? That gene enabled the bacteria to produce a protein that was naturally (and selectively) an insecticide to a particular insect, that also happened to be a pest to the corn. Instead of spending time, money, and fuel to spray a synthetic insecticide across entire fields, this modification gave the corn inherent ability to repel that insect. Eliminate the need to spray, minimize pest-related crop losses, reduce the financial risks, using tools that are already in that environment (if you ate some of that soil and the non-modified corn, you would’ve eaten the same things – and more – that would be in that Bt corn). Here are a few of the original modifications; you can cross-reference those with this database for origins of modifications, and what they do. The modifications were done as alternative no only to synthetic insecticide, but also because – even if someone were able to propagate enough of that bacteria and somehow get it into a sprayer tank and maintain its viability and time application properly, a soil bacterium might not necessarily do anything once it hit the leaves of the plant. Alternatively, other ‘beneficials’ (insects that prey on the insects that are damaging the crop) can be deployed, which is more feasible and a strategy already used in some areas. Anyways, I think it was bad timing and terrible communication around what how it actually worked and it wasn’t received well by public combined with . It was also introduced with other GMO traits specific to herbicide tolerance, in the same variety, which would have definitely been confusing to the layperson. Check this publication to learn about the fate of such proteins in crop residue in the field, or impacts on other predators or parasitoids. Lots of publications on these topics exist, and it’s really interesting & complex but this post is long enough as it is!

Another example is briefly mentioned in the documentary Food Evolution. A few years ago there were some genetic tweaks that prevented Ugandan banana farms from being completely wiped out by a fungal pathogen. This wasn’t the focus of the documentary and I don’t think the producer actually even realized it, but this would be a fascinating topic to explore.

The academic world is also diving into this topic as well, from India, to the USA (tons of resources with that group from Berkeley), and I remember reading an article out of (I think) Manitoba about 2 years ago, but I cannot find this – if you remember reading it let me know!

Organic GMOs, I think, will become increasingly relevant in the next few years – not only to comply with global efforts to reduce pesticide use, but for reasons unrelated to pesticides. Here are a few more intriguing non-human-nutrition-focused benefits that GMOs could offer, assuming their progress isn’t further impeded. Over the past couple decades, they have helped to reduce pesticide (herbicide & insecticide) and indirectly reduced GHG emissions. Recent efforts are investigating the ability to modify plants (trees, maybe field crops soon) to reduce carbon emissions by increasing their capacity to store carbon in their root systems. They hint at other modifications to improve their amenability to processing for biofuel use as well, further adding to efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Other groups believe GMOs are essential to quickly adapting commercial crop varieties for extreme environmental changes, such as drought, or even to produce ‘no-carbon‘ fuel. Check out Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay, one of many “futures” that agriculture could take.

Such technologies to combat field pests isn’t perfect; some populations of the target pest can eventually overcome the crop’s inherent insecticidal ability – note that this is not unique to insects nor to genetic engineering solutions to pests. There are greater implications beyond the scope here, but briefly, implies how crucial crop rotations are (in other words, removing continuous availability of hosts), as well as taking an integrated approach to production (switching up the tools used to combat pests, and/or using 2 or more tools at once).

Another valid concern raised is that crops modified to endogenously produce pesticides means that it is dispersed throughout the plant & thus the parts that are processed for food. If prohibition of this area of research were to end, I would anticipate that the end-products would be subject to the same extensive Health Canada regulations as “food additives” currently are.

To reiterate from the beginning, I’m not saying this is an all-or-nothing scenario, or that GMOs offer all the answers. But I do believe these technologies and systems should be more integrated and be given more consideration as complementary rather than viewed as competition. The rapidity with which environments have changed in recent history I would think is even more reason to put all options on the table. When has prohibition of anything ever been effective?

So I hope to leave you with some new questions to ponder: Is human-directed plant breeding – GMO or not – the opposite of “natural”? Or, since humans are also an evolved part of nature, is this simply the next step in natural selection and we are a conscious component of the entire natural environment imposing selection pressure? If organic GMO options were to be offered in a grocery store at a price point between current prices for organic and non-organic, would you buy it? Are GMOs viable considerations to effectively addressing global issues such as climate change? Should the same ‘rules’ apply to plants being used for food, as for industrial (non-food) use?

Again – the purpose of this post is not to declare anything as right or wrong, good or bad, best or worst; rather, it is to help non-specialists understand technical nuances and offer some new information to ponder, or cause some progressive discussion among industry. Hopefully in some way, it might help guide a more progressive, rational, sustainable and/or profitable industry. Nothing here is sponsored; it is simply my own view on current and future directions that agriculture may take.

Oh, but if anyone from Morgan is reading this, I’m open to sponsorship opportunities 😉 Canola oil-powered diesel SuperSports, perhaps?! It’s not a BMW, it’s not a hot rod, it’s not a wood sculpture or a framed painting, but it’s got elements of all and can serve those purposes. As the saying goes, ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.’ It required innovators to identify the opportunity, bring parts together in a new way, and create something amazing.