Everything is GMO.
GMOs are regulated like biohazards but radiation-blasted grapefruits get a free pass. We’ve been genetically modifying food for thousands of years. We've just never called it that.
For something that helps us grow more food with fewer chemicals, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) sure get a bad rap. The very mention of the triplet conjures images of frankenfoods, mad scientists, and shadowy corporations meddling with nature.
But in reality, everything we eat is genetically modified. Not just the high GABA tomatoes or vitamin-fortified rice, but your garden variety suspects too: bananas, broccoli, corn, watermelon. While only some crops are technically labelled ‘GMO,’ the fact is most, if not all, of our modern crops have been radically altered by human hands.
The irony is we regulate gene-edited tomatoes like biohazards but give a free pass to radiation-blasted grapefruits.
We’ve been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years. We’ve just never called them GMOs.
How We Actually Make Plants -
Let’s take a look at some of the different ways we’ve engineered our crops:
Selective Breeding
Early farmers picked plants with desirable traits — bigger fruit, better taste, longer shelf life — and bred them over generations by pollinating two parent plants. This created more pronounced traits and is how we turned a bitter weed into broccoli and its cousins: kale, cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts.Hybridization
A specific kind of selective breeding. It involves crossing two genetically distinct parents, often from different varieties or even species, to produce a hybrid with traits from both. Modern wheat, for example, is a synthetic hybrid of three ancestral grasses.Chemical Mutagenesis
Seeds are soaked in chemicals such as ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), which cause thousands of random mutations in their DNA. Most of these are useless or even harmful to the plant, but occasionally a seed produces a plant with a desirable trait — faster growth, resistance to disease, or better flavour. The mutated seeds are grown out in large batches, and the useful mutants are selected and bred. Imprecise, yet still widely used.Radiation-Induced Mutagenesis
Here’s where it gets a little sci-fi. Seeds are blasted with gamma rays, X-rays, or fast neutrons to break apart and scramble DNA. Mutations occur by chance, and thousands of seeds must be grown to find one with a desirable trait. Ruby red grapefruit? That’s a result of gamma irradiation. It’s random and chaotic but in spite of this, the technique has produced over 3,000 commercial plant varieties and remains largely unregulated.Transgenesis
This is where the controversy usually starts. Transgenesis involves inserting a gene from one species into another. For example, taking a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and adding it to corn, so the plant can produce its own insecticide. This is the famous Bt Corn. The gene is delivered by hijacking Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil bacterium that naturally inserts DNA into plants, or by using a gene gun that fires DNA-coated metal particles into plant cells or via CRISPR. The modified cells are grown into full plants and tested for the new trait.
These are the five principal ways we make our crops: four are chaotic, scattershot, and unpredictable. One is precise, calculated and purposeful.
CRISPR: Precision in a World of Sledgehammers -
CRISPR-Cas9 is a powerful gene-editing tool derived from a natural immune mechanism in bacteria. In microbial cells, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) essentially functions as a defence archive: fragments of viral DNA are stored in the genome to help recognize and destroy future invaders. When a familiar virus appears, the Cas9 protein is guided to a matching archived sequence and neutralises the threat.
In biotechnology, this mechanism has been repurposed as a precise gene editing tool. Scientists can synthesize a guide RNA that matches a specific DNA sequence in a genome. This enables researchers to disable genes, correct mutations, or insert new genetic material with extraordinary specificity.
Unlike chemical or radiation mutagenesis which create thousands of unpredictable changes, CRISPR allows for targeted and controlled modifications. It’s more efficient, more transparent, much faster and significantly less error-prone. However, it’s not flawless. Off-target edits can happen, but they’re rare, detectable, and improving fast. Of course, any intervention on living systems carries ecological trade-offs, and can cause ripple effects. But that’s exactly why regulation should focus on what a crop does, not how it was made.
And yet, CRISPR ends up as the evil poster child for genetic manipulation and playing god. Not the crops derived from radiation exposure. Not the chemical-soaked seeds. But the one tool that actually tells you what it did and why.
The Regulatory Paradox -
The world community is divided over the classification of CRISPR and each nation is working on an ever-evolving regulatory framework. Whilst you could broadly argue that the US regulates the product and the EU the method, it’s not quite that simple.
In the U.S, gene-edited plants created with CRISPR to knock out genes are not considered GMOs, as long as no foreign DNA is inserted. But plants inserted with foreign DNA, so transgenic plants, are highly regulated. Oversight also appears to be a messy patchwork across agencies, shaped more by precedent than principle.
In the EU, as soon as CRISPR is used, the product is labelled GMO and highly regulated. On the other hand, radiation-blasted or chemically mutated plants? Largely unregulated. The least precise, most unpredictable methods fly under the radar whilst the most targeted tool in modern biotechnology gets slapped with red tape.
This is the absurdity of fearing the scalpel but embracing the bazooka. And whilst there is some risk, the debate has become about the narrative without stopping to ask why and how GMO became a dirty word.
Fear the Monopoly, Not the Tool -
With every breakthrough comes some level of discomfort. Especially for those holding the patents. We absolutely should be concerned about monopolies, seed patents for terminator seeds (and others), and corporate control. Most GMO traits today are designed to lock in herbicide sales. That’s not about food security. That’s a business model. We can’t allow a handful of corporations to license our food.
This is a criticism of modern agriculture and the business practices of huge corporations that control our food system. But it represents economic and political problems, not scientific ones. The tool isn’t the issue. Who wields it is.
CRISPR is already being used in open-source breeding programs and university labs. It can be democratized and shared. What we need is open access, public oversight, and regulatory frameworks that focus on safety, not superstition.
We desperately, desperately need to shift agriculture to a more sustainable model. Precision genetic manipulation is another essential tool in making that happen.
The Future of Food Is Intentional -
More people. More mouths to feed. More droughts. Less land. Less water. Less biodiversity. Harsher conditions. We can’t keep doing things the old way. As an increasing number of conflicts are unashamedly driven by resource scarcity, we need to become radically more efficient in how we use and manage those resources.
We need crops that use less water, resist heat and deter pests naturally. Crops that are adaptable, resilient, efficient and nutritious. Instead of banning some of the most powerful tools at our disposal, we should be championing them whilst demanding:
Smarter regulation
Transparent science
Open-source technology
Decentralisation
Evaluation based on outcome
We gave up ‘natural’ with the first plough. The future of food isn’t purity. It’s precision. Everything is GMO. Get over it.
Other Sources -