Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Neil deGrasse Tyson rips apart one of the silliest anti-GMO arguments

(Photo by: Peter Kramer/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images)

In an old video recently posted on YouTube and unearthed by Mother Jones, astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson emphatically countered one of the main arguments used by opponents of genetically modified food. "Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans," he says, "is genetically modified food."

“We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals, that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them,” he goes on. “It’s called ‘artificial selection.’ That’s how we genetically modify them.”

Now, as it’s typically used, genetic modification often refers to things like scientists swapping out a gene from one species and putting it into another species — rather than simply selecting for genes already present in a particular plant, as farmers have done historically.

But in many ways, this is more of a semantic nuance than a substantial difference. Just by using traditional breeding methods, as Tyson notes, we've dramatically altered the appearance, nutrition, taste, and reproductive habits of pretty much all the foods we eat. This is part of the reason why "all-natural" labels on foods are meaningless. The only "natural" apple is a crabapple, and "natural" corn — as it existed before humans domesticated it 9,000 years ago — was a rock-hard grass with a few kernels that shattered before it could be harvested.

Of course, there are many other reasons why people currently oppose lab-engineered foods. So far, though, there isn’t good evidence that they’re any less safe than regular foods. The impact of these foods on the environment seems to be mixed: they may have reduced pesticide use, but have increased use of weed-killing herbicides, and could give rise to herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Many opponents also charge that a few biotech companies have profited from them as much as millions of farmers and consumers.

But if your problem with GM foods is simply that they’re not “natural”, Tyson has a simple message for you: “Chill out.”

Further reading: "All-natural" labels on foods are meaningless

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff