The Myths and Truths behind GMOs with Dr Kevin Folta

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)  are among the most controversial, and misunderstood, topics in nutrition and agriculture.

In this conversation with Dr. Kevin Folta, we unpack what genetic engineering actually is, how it’s regulated, what the evidence says about health, and where this technology could genuinely improve food quality, sustainability, and access.

Dr. Kevin Folta is a Professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department  at the University of Florida.  His research examines how specific light wavelengths control plant processes, and how various genes influence fruit crop flowering, and fruit flavor and aroma. He has been recognized with numerous awards in research and science communication, including the CAST Borlaug Award in Agricultural Communications. His main passions are public engagement in science, and helping his wife, daughter and son farm fruit, vegetables, chickens, turkeys and pigs near Archer, FL. You can find them all selling at the farmers market every Saturday.  Ph.D. In molecular biology, 1998. 

“In 30 years of genetically engineered crops, not a single health event has been linked to them.”

What a “GMO” Really Means

The term GMO is imprecise. Scientists prefer the term genetic engineering, which refers to deliberately inserting or editing specific genes to add or remove traits in a plant.

For centuries, humans have been improving crops through traditional crossbreeding—pairing plants with desirable traits (say, disease resistance and flavor) and hoping the offspring inherit both. But this process is slow and unpredictable.

Genetic engineering is different:

• It allows scientists to target the exact gene responsible for a desired trait and move it into another plant background.

• It’s faster and more precise than crossbreeding.

• It’s not limited to sexually compatible species. A gene from bacteria can be added to a plant, something impossible with traditional breeding.

As Dr. Folta put it:

“Would you rather cross an engineered bridge or a modified bridge? Engineering implies precision.”

This shift in language matters because “modified” can sound sloppy or haphazard. In reality, genetic engineering is one of the most precise tools available in plant science.

Which Foods Are Actually Genetically Engineered?

Many people assume that all common foods, like wheat, tomatoes, or strawberries, are genetically engineered. In fact, the list is surprisingly short.

The four big ones in the U.S. are:

• Corn

• Soybeans

• Sugar beets

• Canola

  
  

These crops primarily enter the food supply as starches, oils, and sugars—the building blocks of processed foods.

Outside of these, only a few specialty items are genetically engineered:

• Hawaiian papaya (resistant to papaya ringspot virus)

• Arctic® apple (engineered to resist browning, mainly used for processing)

• Pink pineapple (rare, limited distribution)

• Some squash and zucchini (small acreage)

  
  

That’s it. Wheat, tomatoes, strawberries, and most produce you see in the supermarket are not genetically engineered.

GMOs and Pesticide Use: The Honest Breakdown

One of the biggest public concerns is that GMOs lead to more pesticide use. But this needs nuance.

First, let’s define terms:

• Pesticides = umbrella category, including herbicides (weed killers), insecticides, fungicides, and antimicrobials.

  
  

Here’s how genetic engineering has changed each category:

• Insecticides: Use has dramatically decreased thanks to Bt crops. These plants produce a protein that only harms specific insect pests that feed on them. That means fewer broad-spectrum sprays that wipe out both pests and beneficial insects.

  • People sometimes argue that if something is harming the pest then humans should not consume it either but Dr. Folta compares this to how chocolate is toxic for dogs but very safe for humans. Bt crops only harms insects, not humans.

• Fungicides: Few GE traits exist yet for fungus resistance (though growers would love them).

• Herbicides: Use has increased overall, but here’s the nuance:

  • Herbicide-tolerant crops (like glyphosate-resistant soy and corn) make weed control easy.

  • The amount used per acre hasn’t changed; there are just more acres planted with these crops.

    
    

The main challenge? Weed resistance. Just as bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, weeds can adapt if the same herbicide is used year after year. In those cases, farmers sometimes need multiple herbicides, going against the goal of using less.

Golden Rice: A Heartbreaking Case Study

“An estimated 250 000–500 000 children who are vitamin A-deficient become blind every year, and half of them die within 12 months of losing their sight” - World Health Organization

One of the most promising examples of GMO technology was Golden Rice, created nearly 30 years ago. Scientists engineered rice to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A.

Why? In parts of Asia and Africa, vitamin A deficiency causes blindness, immune breakdown, and ~1 million child deaths per year. Golden Rice was designed to solve this by providing a staple food rich in beta-carotene.

Despite its potential, Golden Rice faced relentless opposition from activist groups and misinformation campaigns.

• It was finally approved in the Philippines in 2021—only to be pulled back a few years later due to fear, not evidence.

• In the meantime, the technology has been applied to bananas, potatoes, and other staples, but none have reached the people they were designed to help.

This is a case where fear of “GMOs” outweighed the potential for massive public health benefit.

The Regulatory Gauntlet

If GE technology is so promising, why aren’t there more examples?

The answer is regulation.

Bringing a single genetically engineered crop to market requires approval from three federal agencies:

• FDA: food safety

• EPA: environmental safety (for pesticidal traits)

• USDA-APHIS: plant and ecological safety

“One estimate: $130 million and 13 years of testing and review for a single trait.”

That cost means only large corporations can afford to participate, even though some of the most successful examples—like Hawaiian papaya—were developed by public researchers and co-ops. Ironically, opposition campaigns raised the bar so high that they ensured only big companies could stay in the game.

Do GMOs Cause Cancer or Change Your DNA?

Short answer: No.

• DNA and proteins from food are broken down in digestion, just like any other protein or carbohydrate. They don’t integrate into your DNA.

• After 30 years of global use, there has not been a single documented health event linked to eating genetically engineered crops.

• Large reviews of animal and human data show no evidence of cancer risk.

  
  

“We scare people away from the very foods—fruits, vegetables, fiber—that are the healthiest things they can eat.”

Unfortunately, fear has real consequences: people buy less produce when told they “must” eat organic to avoid GMOs.

What About Biodiversity, Soil, and Pollinators?

Another criticism is that GMOs harm biodiversity.

Here’s what the evidence says:

• The biggest biodiversity loss happens simply from converting land to farms. Corn and soy aren’t native to U.S. prairies, so farming itself changes ecosystems, regardless of genetic engineering.

• Herbicide-tolerant systems can reduce fence-line weeds that pollinators like, but the bigger threat to pollinators is broad-spectrum insecticide sprays. Bt crops, which reduce those sprays, can actually help pollinators by sparing non-target insects.

• Soil health is affected by farming in general (monocropping, fertilizer use), not by genetic engineering per se.

  
  

The takeaway: farming always impacts ecosystems, but GE crops can reduce reliance on harsher tools when used responsibly.

Are GMOs Less Nutritious Than Organic?

Large meta-analyses show that nutrient content of GMO and non-GMO crops is broadly equivalent.

Some organic crops show slightly higher levels of certain antioxidants like polyphenols or anthocyanins, but taste, cost, and access matter more:

“If conventional produce is less expensive and you can buy more of it and eat twice as much, you’re getting 200% of the nutrition.”

For public health, the priority is clear: more fruits and vegetables, period.

Misinformation and Its Real-World Impact

Fear-based messaging like the “Dirty Dozen” list often has unintended consequences.

Studies show that when people are told non-organic produce is unsafe, they don’t switch to organic—they simply buy less produce overall.

“Farmers aren’t trying to kill you—it’s a lousy business model.”

Demonizing conventional or genetically engineered crops risks widening nutrition gaps for lower-income families.

Where Genetic Engineering Could Help Next

The technology isn’t just about herbicide tolerance. Promising future directions include:

• Celiac-safe wheat (removing gluten epitopes).

• Lower-allergen fruits (e.g., hypoallergenic strawberries, apples).

• Disease-resistant citrus and strawberries, reducing fungicide sprays.

• Drought-tolerant crops to stretch limited water resources.

These are tools to make healthy food more accessible and resilient in the face of climate change and global demand.

Final Take

Genetic engineering is not a silver bullet. It’s one tool in the agricultural toolbox, alongside crop rotation, irrigation efficiency, traditional breeding, and soil management.

But it’s a tool that:

• Has a 30-year safety record.

• Can reduce insecticides used.

• Can make farming more sustainable.

• Could create foods that are more nutritious  and accessible.

The challenge isn’t scientific, it’s cultural and political. If fear continues to drive policy, we risk leaving life-saving solutions on the shelf.

Listen to Dr. Kevin Folta podcast here

For more evidence-based health insights subscribe to the Modrn Wellness podcast and follow @dr.marypardee on Instagram.

Disclaimer: 

The information in this blog is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this blog is for general information purposes only. Modrn med and Dr. Mary Pardee make no representation and assume no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained in or made available through this blog, and such information is subject to change without notice. This blog does not provide medical services, diagnosis or counsel. You are encouraged to confirm any information obtained from or through this email with other source

and review all information regarding any medical condition or treatment with your physician. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking medical treatment because of something you have read on or accessed through this information.