Should our future food be genetically engineered?

“This decision is a monumental win for Filipino farmers and Filipino people who have for decades stood up against genetically modified (GM) crops,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a Southeast Asia campaigner for Greenpeace, an advocacy group that has opposed genetically modified crops for decades, said in a statement.

Although genetically modified crops may still provoke fear and uncertainty, some scientists argue that not only can they help to alleviate human health concerns, but they might also be able to help fight climate change. And as new tools like CRISPR, which can make targeted cuts in DNA, gain traction, genetic food engineering could be on the cusp of a quantum leap.

“It’s all political,” Stuart Smyth, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Saskatchewan, said of the Philippines’ decision. “It’s not based on science.”

Genetically modified crops are ones that have had genetic material inserted from another species of organism. For example, the first genetically modified food product — a tomato introduced to the public in 1994 as the “Flavr Savr” — had two genes added. One conferred antibiotic resistance, and another gave the tomato a longer shelf life. (The company manufacturing the Flavr Savr, Calgene, had to cease production in 1997 because of rising costs.)

Today, there are only a few genetically modified crops in production, but those that exist are widely grown. In the United States, 94 percent of all soybeans, 96 percent of all cotton and 92 percent of all corn were genetically modified as of 2020, according to the Food and Drug Administration. These crops became popular because of their ability to withstand glyphosate, a key ingredient in the herbicide known as Roundup. Other countries that grow genetically modified crops widely include Canada, Brazil and India.

No major scientific research has found that genetically modified crops cause health problems in humans. In a 400-plus-page report published in 2016, the National Academies of Science found that “no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.” The report urged analysis of such foods by the traits that they include, rather than how they were created.

Yet engineered crops remain unpopular. According to a Pew Research Center poll published in 2020, 38 percent of Americans believe genetically modified crops are unsafe, compared with 27 percent who believe they are safe. Thanks to a law passed by Congress in 2016, foods in the United States are required to be labeled as bioengineered if they involved genetic engineering beyond what could be accomplished with conventional breeding techniques. One analysis showed that consumers are willing to pay 20 percent more to avoid GM foods.

At the same time, a small but growing body of research has argued that GM foods could play a significant role in cutting carbon emissions. In a study published in 2022, researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany and the Berkeley, Calif.-based Breakthrough Institute found that widespread use of these crops in Europe could cut the agricultural sector’s emissions by 7.5 percent.

Another study found that the use of GM crops globally saves around 23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year — equal to removing around half of the registered vehicles from roads in the United Kingdom.

There are two primary ways genetically engineered crops could cut carbon emissions.

First, they can be more productive, creating higher yields for farmers and allowing them to grow more food on less land. One global analysis found that GM crops on average lead to a 22 percent increase in yields. At the same time, one-third of all emissions from agriculture are from deforestation and the destruction of other natural areas; as farmers expand and grow more crops, they cut down trees that are storing CO2 in their trunks and leaves.

If farmers can grow their crops on less land, less forest is converted into farmland, allowing trees and landscapes to store more carbon. “That decrease in deforestation is the big reason why yield increases cut emissions,” said Emma Kovak, a senior food and agriculture analyst for the Breakthrough Institute.

Other scientists say crops with herbicide resistance can require less tilling. “Every time soil is tilled, it releases carbon back into the atmosphere,” Smyth said. Herbicide-resistant corn, for example, can endure being sprayed by weed-killing agents, preventing farmers from having to till the land to remove weeds.

But the environmental community is split. Some activists say focusing on climate change obscures the real problem with genetically modified crops: the role of big corporations in controlling food production.

“We see GMOs as a tool of the major corporations that already have a stranglehold on our food system,” said Amanda Starbuck, research director at Food & Water Watch. Many genetically modified crops, Starbuck says, go toward feeding animals for meat production — and improvements in yield won’t change the fact that humans need to move away from eating so much meat. “We need to move to significantly reduce that consumption,” she added.

Research into alleviating climate change with genetically modified crops has just begun. “On a scale of one to 100, I’d say it’s single digits,” Smyth said. Scientists say they need more analysis of how GM crops change land use and carbon sequestration, as well as studies that take place over longer periods of time.

But even in areas where the science is relatively settled, genetically engineered foods have struggled to gain acceptance. Golden rice was developed in the late 20th century by a Swiss scientist; it was intended to combat the estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children every year who go blind from vitamin A deficiency. More than two decades later, however, the crop has not entered widespread cultivation, thanks in part to regulatory battles in Asia and resistance from environmentalists.

In its decision to ban genetically modified crops, the appeals court cited a Philippine legal principle granting the right to a healthy environment.

For opponents of genetically engineered crops, that is a victory; for some scientists, it is a missed opportunity. “It’s sad that something someone developed in the 1980s to solve a problem — a really bad problem, children going blind — is still relevant,” Kovak said.

And while the battle lines around genetically modified crops have been set for decades, new technologies may shake things up. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR allow scientists to make tweaks, deletions or changes in a genome without inserting genes from another species. Researchers are already working on gene-edited crops that could speed up photosynthesis and increase crop yields.

Changing a genome without adding a component from another species could be more palatable to consumers — but some environmental groups believe it is just a way to rebrand the same type of work.

“Industry could say: ‘Well, it’s not GMO. It’s gene-edited,’” Starbuck said. “It’s just another smokescreen.”

The shift could also complicate existing regulations, which have been tied to older definitions of genetic modification.

“It’s frustrating,” Smyth said. “We need to make all of these changes to cut carbon emissions. But how are we supposed to meet the Paris accord with one hand tied behind our back?”