Separating GMO Facts from
Patrick Moore's Fiction

Moore argues in this chapter that the terms “Frankenfoods” and “Frankenstein foods” were part of a “scare campaign” and peaked in 1999 before “the damage was done.” 

His implication is that any concern about GMOs were irrational, based on fear rather than substance. However, opposition to GMOs has always been rooted in tangible science and concerns, not just emotional rhetoric. By framing the debate as if it were only about a marketing term, Moore sidesteps the real issues that have led to continued GMO skepticism worldwide. In this rebuttal, we’ll address all the real issues.

The Terminator Seed Misdirection

Moore dismisses concerns over genetically modified “terminator seeds,” saying that they were “met with organized outrage as Monsanto and other seed companies were accused of ‘addicting’ farmers to their seeds, making it impossible for the farmers to use the seeds from part of their previous harvest to plant for the next year’s crop.” 

He claims that the outrage around these terminator seeds was misplaced, as “modern farmers almost never save seeds from their crop” anyway, since improved hybrids perform better each season.

This argument is misleading. Yes, it is true that many (but not all) farmers  buy new hybrid seeds each year for better yields. But the controversy over terminator seeds was not about traditional hybrid vigor, but about corporations intentionally engineering seeds to be sterile. Sterile seeds would eliminate the possibility of seed saving altogether. This creates a system where farmers are forced into annual purchases by design, increasing corporate control over food production. Moore ignores this crucial distinction and falsely equates voluntary hybrid seed purchases with mandatory seed repurchasing imposed by genetic modification.

Comparing GMOs to Traditional Seedless Fruits

To downplay concerns about genetically modified sterility, Moore writes, “There were already plenty of seedless food crops that had been produced by conventional breeding techniques. Examples include watermelons, bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, oranges, lemons, and limes. No one had ever thought to condemn seed companies for doing this.”

This comparison is deceptive. Traditional seedless fruits result from selective breeding, not genetic modification designed to force repurchasing. Furthermore, these crops still reproduce through vegetative propagation (e.g., banana cuttings), whereas terminator seeds would have completely prevented regrowth. Moore’s argument ignores the economic and ethical concerns unique to genetically engineered sterility.

The “Playing God” Fallacy

Moore argues that opposition to GMOs stems from the idea that humans should not be “playing God” and that “this activity must not be permitted.” He then ridicules this perspective, saying, “By this standard, virtually everything we’ve done since harnessing fire and using stone tools is playing God, never mind supersonic aircraft and nuclear reactors.”

This is a classic false equivalence. While fire and tools were incremental advancements within natural processes, genetic modification directly alters the DNA of living organisms in ways that could have unforeseen consequences. The concern is not simply that humans are changing nature but that they are doing so in ways that could have irreversible ecological and economic effects, often for corporate gain rather than the public good. The comparison to nuclear reactors is ironic, as those, too, require heavy regulation due to their long-term risks—exactly the kind of oversight GMO critics argue is necessary.

Downplaying Corporate Control

Moore dismisses concerns about corporate monopolization, writing, “Of course, there was the fear that multinational seed companies would become monopolies and ‘control the global food supply and dominate the world.’ It was never explained how selling superior seeds to farmers, who are free to buy whatever seeds they prefer, could bring about a global dictatorship.”

This argument ignores the reality of corporate seed control. In many cases, farmers are not truly “free to buy whatever seeds they prefer” because companies like Monsanto (now Bayer) have patented large portions of the seed market, limiting alternatives. The concentration of power in a few agribusiness giants has led to rising seed costs, legal battles over patent infringement, and restrictions on traditional seed-sharing practices. The issue isn’t just about selling better seeds—it’s about controlling access to the fundamental building blocks of agriculture.

Engineering GMO's is Different from Selectively Breeding Plants and Animals

We all know that our species has been shaping plants and animals through selective breeding for thousands of years. Ancient farmers in Mexico turned a wild grass known as teosinte into what is now something completely different - modern corn. For hundreds of years, these farmers selected plants with bigger, tastier kernels. Early livestock herders bred dogs to become keen herding dogs, hunters or companions. This process was slow, and worked within the limits of an organism’s natural genetic variation.

Genetic engineering is different. Instead of waiting generations for more beneficial traits to emerge, GMO scientists go straight to the DNA. They cut, they splice and they insert genes, often with surgical precision. A bacterium gene might be added to corn so it produces its own pesticide. Soybeans might be engineered to survive heavy doses of herbicide. These genetic modifications happen in a lab, using techniques that allow scientists to alter life at the molecular level, far beyond the speed and breadth encompassed in the natural world.

Organisms Created in the Blink-of-an-eye is Problematic

The natural processes that happen outside the lab have a way of creating checks and balances. Species evolve in the region they were meant to evolve, created by a cocktail of climate, predators, and competition. But when we start moving species around, things can get messy. Lionfish in the Caribbean, English ivy in the Pacific Northwest, emerald ash borers in the North, feral pigs in the South Pacific—each of these species is harmless in its native habitat but devastating when introduced somewhere new.

Genetic modification is different—it is a rapid change that happens at the genetic level, within a single generation. And just like with invasive species, the consequences can be unpredictable. A gene inserted into a plant to create a resistance to pests could unintentionally harm insect biodiversity - one of the foundations of a healthy environment. A tweak meant to boost drought tolerance might make it difficult for the plant to interact with soil microbes. When we create something entirely new, we should be asking: What happens next?

Genetic Engineering and Science Fiction

Some of the techniques used in genetic modification sound like something out of science fiction. One example is the gene gun, designed to shoot microscopic DNA-coated bullets into plant cells. Scientists hope the foreign DNA lodges itself into just the right spot of the organism’s DNA that is being shot at.

Another approach is mutation breeding where scientists bombards radiation or chemicals at plant seeds in order to scramble their DNA randomly. Instead of waiting for centuries to see natural mutations occur, this technique speeds up the process. While its mostly genetic dead ends, there are sometimes beneficial changes to the DNA that the scientists can exploit.

There is also electroporation, where plant cells are zapped with electricity. This opens up their membranes, allowing foreign DNA to slip inside. This process is more controlled than the gene gun, but still a trial-and-error process.

CRISPR Gene Editing Ups the Game, and the Risks

CRISPR gene editing is the newest and most precise genetic engineering tool yet. But unlike older GMO techniques, which were more like natural evolution on steroids, CRISPR edits DNA directly. Now, humans can make changes directly to the blueprints of species, in ways we don’t fully understand.

One major concern is off-target effects—accidental edits in the wrong part of the genome. Even a tiny mistake could essentially destroy an important gene, potentially causing unexpected health risks or ecological consequences. Lets say we create corn, engineered to resist insect pests, but what if that engineered corn unintentionally kills off insects essential to the pollination of crops or even wild plants. Unlike traditional GMOs, where the ability to fundamentally change DNA was more limited, CRISPR has the power to rewrite entire genetic systems, with the potential for major effects rippling through ecosystems in ways that may be difficult to understand in the short term.

But there is actually more! Gene drives are a radical new application of CRISPR that forces genetic changes to spread through entire populations. Scientists have proposed using this to wipe out invasive species or malaria-carrying mosquitoes, but once released, these changes are nearly impossible to control. With gene drives, scientists are not just messing about by modifying individual organisms—they are actually altering the future of entire species.

CRISPR and genetic engineering give us incredible power over the natural world, but history shows that rapid, unnatural changes often have consequences we can’t see around the corner. Unlike traditional breeding, where nature still plays a role in selection, genetic engineering bypasses those checks and balances. It’s not just about what we can do—it’s about whether we’ve thought far enough ahead to understand what happens next.

There are Environmental Risks in GMOs

While Moore claims there is “simply nothing in GMOs that could cause harm,” the widespread adoption of genetically modified crops has led to significant ecological consequences. Let me get into a few of these.

Monoculture and Declining Biodiversity

Monoculture farming—vast, single-crop landscapes—has fueled some of history's worst agricultural disasters. It strips genetic diversity, leaving crops vulnerable to disease and farmers dependent on chemical fixes.

Driving through northern Honduras, I saw endless palm oil plantations. As these spread, so do the problems: deforestation, polluted waterways, collapsing biodiversity, and displaced communities. We've seen it before.

The Irish Potato Famine—caused by overreliance on a single potato variety—killed a million people and forced another million to flee. The American Dust Bowl? Prairie grasses replaced with wheat, leaving topsoil exposed. A drought hit, winds carried the land away, and farms were abandoned. In British-ruled India, prioritizing jute and indigo over food crops left millions starving in the Bengal Famine.

And then there's bananas. The world once ate Gros Michel bananas—until disease wiped them out. The industry switched to Cavendish, but now that's under threat too. Monoculture's weak spot? It doesn't learn from its mistakes.

GMO crops were supposed to be different. They're not. Bt cotton in India? Engineered to resist pests, it led to new ones, forcing farmers back to pesticides—except now they were stuck buying expensive, patented seeds. Many lost everything. South America's Roundup Ready soy? A deforestation machine that created herbicide-resistant superweeds. GMO corn in the U.S.? A playground for corn rootworm, which quickly adapted, forcing farmers to douse their fields with chemicals again.

Monocultures make our global food supply fragile, putting us all a bad season away from catastrophe. And yet, Patrick Moore thinks GMOs deserve zero oversight? That concern about them is "ignorant"? Give me a break.

There is another path besides Moore's grim GMO future, one that dovetails beautifully with what we could assume are among mankind’s core priorities: climate-change mitigation, preservation of wild biodiversity and stability of our food supplies. 

You would call this alternative conservation agriculture and regenerative agriculture. 

Moore's version of agriculture, which is industrial-scale farming based on genetically uniform crops, heavy pesticide use,and chemical inputs, is the opposite of conservation and regenerative farming, which emphasize soil regeneration, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. 

These strategies are essential not only for the health of the climate but help to protect food security and reduce dependence on vulnerable monocultures.

Conservation agriculture seeks minimal disturbance of soil, permanent soil cover and diverse crop rotation. While traditional industrial agriculture devastates ecosystems through constant plow and plant, conservation agriculture protects soil structure and maintains fertility. Believe it or not, those on the forefront of conservation agriculture are actually conventional farmers, and not, say, organic farmers from California.

Through reduced tillage farmers keep carbon under the soil rather than releasing it into the atmosphere as CO2. Cover crops prevent erosion, suppress weeds organically and enhance water retention, which decreases the need for synthetic fertilizers. Crop rotation builds up soil health by preventing nutrients from being depleted, and by breaking the cycles of pests that often destroy monocultures. This not only increases yields over time, it also makes farms more resilient to drought and extreme weather — problems that are getting worse because of climate change.

Regenerative agriculture is the next step, and goes beyond conservation farming. Conservation agriculture focuses on farming techniques that actively restore degraded ecosystems. This includes holistic grazing, agroforestry, composting, integrating livestock with crop production. 

Regenerative farming promotes biodiversity and draws down carbon from the atmosphere into the soil through the process of photosynthesis by imitating natural ecosystems. Integrating trees into croplands, which is called agroforestry, creates windbreaks, decreases soil erosion and provides habitat for pollinators. 

Likewise, rotational grazing imitates the natural movements of herd animals, so that grasslands recover rather than being subject to continuing overgrazing. These practices restore soil organic matter, resulting in greater productivity, without synthetic inputs — unlike industrial monocultures, which depend on fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. 

Moore's defense of GMO monocultures is outdated and fails to account for the long-run ecological costs of industrial farming. 

The distinction between these approaches could not be more stark: regenerative and conservation agriculture cooperates with nature to create robust, climate-fixing food systems, while Moore's monoculture-everywhere model propels a catastrophic descent toward environmental collapse. The future of agriculture in the face of climate change must be about soil health, biodiversity and carbon drawdown — not genetic uniformity and chemical dependency.

Weeds: The Silent Cost of Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Modern industrial agriculture has a tendency to rewrite entire ecosystems, often in ways that go unnoticed until it is too late.

One of the most ignored consequences? The silent disappearance of pollinators, from bees to butterflies to innumerable other species that bring natural and agricultural landscapes to life.

Herbicide-resistant crops were never meant to kill pollinators, but the manner in which they're farmed has. These crops encourage more intense herbicide use that destroys the flowering plants pollinators depend on. The result? Land emptied of food and shelter, driving already beleaguered bee and butterfly populations into a deeper nosedive.

Bees are not only victims of habitat loss. Even non-lethal exposure to herbicides is suggested by some studies to disrupt their foraging behavior and navigation. A disoriented bee is a foodless bee, a bee that cannot return to the hive. And when colonies don't get enough nourishment, they weaken, resulting in lower reproduction and population crashes. Butterflies, as well, are getting slammed. Take monarchs: They rely on milkweed to live — but widespread use of herbicides has ravaged milkweed populations across North America.

No parent plants, no caterpillars. No caterpillars = no butterflies.

It's more than just bees and butterflies. Moths and beetles, hummingbirds and other pollinators are fading from places where herbicides determine the contours of the land.

Their decline doesn't merely threaten wildflowers; it unravels entire food webs, from songbirds to the crops that feed us. For decades, agriculture has prioritized short-term convenience over long-term ecological stability. But the true price of heavy-handed chemical use is just beginning to be realized. If we care about the biodiversity that keeps our world functioning, we need to rethink farming — not more chemicals, but an approach that emphasizes conservation and balance. This approach is more efficient and higher yield in the long run.

The Risks of GMO Salmon

Somewhere in a laboratory, scientists altered the genes of a salmon to enable it to grow faster. The salmon were large enough to go to market in half the time.

That gave rise to AquaBounty's AquAdvantage salmon, the first genetically engineered fish approved for human consumption. But what if these modified fish escape into the wild?

Proponents say GMO salmon are raised in secure, land-based tanks. But history knows otherwise. And there have been millions of them: Farmed fish have routinely escaped from aquaculture facilities, interbreeding with wild populations or outcompeting them for food. If genetically modified salmon follow suit, the impact could be irreversible.

One concern is fitness. Wild salmon have developed to track up and down food supplies, throttling their growth when the environment calls for it. GMO salmon, bred for constant hunger and fast expansion, would likely flounder in nature, starving when food is limited or making themselves easy prey. And then there's genetic contamination. If GMO salmon crossbreed with wild populations, they could pass along traits that undermine the long-term sustainability of native fish.

Some studies have suggested that hybrid offspring may grow faster than their ecosystems can support, resulting in heightened death rates. Others raise alarms of unknowable genetic consequences — alterations that can't be unmade once they take hold. Then there's the ripple effects. Faster-growing fish require more food. If released into the wild, they could eat prey species, at a density that impacts the whole marine ecosystem, including species that feed on the same food sources.

GMO fish are banned in the European Union. They have been approved in Canada and the U.S., betting that strategies to contain them will hold. But if history has taught us anything, it's that nature finds a way around human defenses. In wild ecosystems, there's no rewind button when it comes to genetic modifications.

The Seeds of Control

In the Mexican highlands, a farmer cradles a handful of corn kernels—blue, yellow, red, and speckled. These seeds, shaped by generations of care, have adapted to altitude, fickle rains, and the whims of the soil. Not far away, fields of uniform, golden stalks stretch to the horizon—genetically modified hybrids, bred for yield, owned by corporations. Here, as in so many places, the struggle for agricultural sovereignty unfolds in the dirt itself.

Farmers once saved their seeds—drying, sorting, tucking them away for next season. But modern industrial agriculture changed that. Today, agribusiness multinationals hold patents on most commercial seeds. These GMO seeds promise efficiency but come with contracts—farmers must buy new seeds each year, locking them into a system where corporate profits dictate what grows.

Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, learned this the hard way in the late 1990s. His fields were contaminated by windblown GMO canola, yet he—not the corporation—was sued for patent infringement. The case set a chilling precedent: farmers could be punished simply for the presence of corporate-owned genes in their crops, whether intentional or not.

In India, Bt cotton—engineered to resist pests—was meant to lift farmers out of poverty. Instead, high seed costs and increased irrigation demands pushed many into debt. When crops failed, thousands faced financial ruin, triggering a tragic wave of suicides. The pattern is clear: when farmers lose control of their seeds, they lose control of their future.

The battle isn't just legal or economic, its about the erosion of traditional knowledge. In Mexico, native corn varieties—each adapted to its own microclimate, are being displaced by GMOs. Farmers worry about cross-pollination; once their fields are contaminated, those ancient seeds may no longer truly belong to them.

In India, once-diverse rice strains that withstood floods, droughts, and shifting monsoons are vanishing, replaced by high-yield hybrids. In South Africa, drought-resistant grains like sorghum and millet are giving way to GMO maize. In the Philippines, Golden Rice threatens to edge out heirloom varieties that have nourished communities for centuries. In Peru, indigenous potato farmers fight to protect their dazzling spectrum of tubers from the creeping reach of monoculture.

A Future in the Soil

Agriculture has always evolved, but this shift isn't just about technology—it's about control. When corporations own the seeds, they shape the food system and those who tend the land. Biodiversity shrinks, independence fades, and farmers become ever more dependent on industries that prioritize profit over sustainability.

But the resistance is growing. Farmers, activists, and seed savers are pushing back—building seed banks, fighting for legal protections, refusing to let corporations dictate the terms of the harvest. The future of food won't come from a patented formula but from those who have always known how to care for the land. Patrick Moore believes that this resistance, a resistance to clients that resemble his own, are "ignorant" and "hateful." Really, Patrick Moore?

Lack of Dietary Diversity and Human Health

While Moore argues that GMOs have not been shown to cause harm, his focus on GMO's direct toxicity ignores a much more insidious issue: the long-term health consequences of reduced dietary diversity. Industrialized farming, fueled by GMO crops, has contributed to a number of issues that are already effecting human health, in ways we are only beginning to understand.

Nutritional Homogenization

The global diet is increasingly dominated by a handful of crops: corn, wheat, soy, and rice. Many of these crops are now overwhelmingly genetically modified. Diets that are reliant on these staples lack the nutritional diversity needed for optimal health and can contribute to micronutrient deficiencies.

These crops, while rich in carbohydrates, often lack essential vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients necessary for long-term well-being. In contrast, the diets of the world’s longest-living populations, such as those in the Blue Zones, emphasize variety and nutrient density.

In Okinawa, Japan, for example, sweet potatoes are a staple instead of rice, providing beta-carotene, fiber, and complex carbohydrates. Their diet is also rich in seaweed, which supplies iodine and trace minerals often missing from Western diets.

In Sardinia, Italy, meals revolve around whole grains, fava beans, and garden vegetables, which means lots of plant-based protein, fiber, and antioxidants that support heart health and longevity.

In the Nicoya Peninsula in Costa Rica, a diet of beans, squash, and corn tortillas provide a complete amino acid profile, while tropical fruits such as papaya and guava deliver high levels of vitamin C and other antioxidants that support immune function.

In Ikaria, Greece, people consume a diverse mix of wild greens, olive oil, and legumes, which are packed with omega-3s, polyphenols, and essential minerals like magnesium, considered vital for maintaining cardiovascular health and cognitive function, particularly as people age.  

In Loma Linda, California, where Seventh-day Adventists follow a plant-based diet, there is an emphasis on whole foods such as nuts, grains, and vegetables, meaning a steady supply of B vitamins, iron, and healthy fats.

Think about it. GMOs force us further away from dietary diversity enshrined in Blue Zone diets at a time when we are learning that eating this way is key to our health.

Antibiotic Resistance Risks

Some GMOs are engineered using antibiotic-resistant marker genes. While regulatory agencies around the world argue that the risk of these genes transferring to human gut bacteria is low, the precautionary principle suggests that more long-term research is needed.

GMOs are often engineered using antibiotic-resistant marker genes as a way to identify successful gene insertions during the development process. These marker genes allow scientists to determine which cells have successfully integrated the desired genetic modification by making them resistant to specific antibiotics. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in which these antibiotic resistance genes could be taken up by bacteria in the human gut or the broader environment, contributing to the growing crisis of antibiotic resistance.

A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives reviewed the persistence of antibiotic-resistant marker genes in soil and water systems, highlighting that these genes can remain stable in the environment for very long time periods. This persistence raises concerns about their potential uptake by pathogenic bacteria, which could make common infections harder to treat. While regulatory agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority argue that the probability of HGT occurring in the human digestive system is low, the scientific community remains divided due to the complexity of microbial ecosystems and the limited long-term studies available.

In a study from Applied and Environmental Microbiology, researchers found evidence that DNA from genetically modified plants can survive passage through the digestive system of livestock, raising questions about whether antibiotic-resistant genes could also remain intact and interact with gut microbiota. Although the researchers did not confirm direct gene transfer to bacteria, their findings emphasized the need for further investigation into the stability of foreign DNA in the gut and its potential role in microbial gene exchange.

Another concern comes from a Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy study, which analyzed antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations near farms growing GM crops. The study found elevated levels of resistance genes in soil bacteria, suggesting that the widespread cultivation of GM crops containing antibiotic-resistant markers could contribute to the broader issue of antibiotic resistance in agricultural environments. This is particularly concerning as antibiotic resistance is already a major global health threat, reducing the effectiveness of life-saving medications.

Some regulatory bodies, including the European Union, have taken a cautious approach, restricting the use of certain antibiotic-resistant marker genes in GMO crops due to the precautionary principle.

The EU’s Directive 2001/18/EC calls for the phasing out of GMOs containing these markers due to their potential risks to human health and the environment. However, in countries like the United States, these concerns have not led to significant regulatory action, and many GM crops continue to be developed using antibiotic resistance markers.

Given the rising global threat of antibiotic-resistant infections, the continued use of these genes in GMO development warrants further scrutiny. The precautionary principle suggests that long-term studies should be conducted before widespread adoption continues. Without more definitive research, the potential consequences of introducing antibiotic resistance genes into ecosystems and food systems remain an unresolved and potentially serious public health issue.

The Precautionary Principle: Science Evolves

Moore’s claim that “there has not been a single verified case of harm” assumes that absence of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence. Long-term studies on the ecological and health impacts of GMOs are still ongoing. Historically, substances like DDT and trans fats were once deemed safe, only for later research to reveal their harmful effects. Dismissing all concerns outright is both unscientific and irresponsible. But that is what Patrick Moore wants us to do. The point of his years of support for GMOs is focused on one thing: eliminating oversight.

Patrick Moore Overreaches and Fails Once Again

Patrick Moore’s stance on GMOs conflates skepticism with denialism. While it is true that some anti-GMO arguments are filled with misinformation, the reality is that there are dead serious concerns about GMO-induced monoculture. Science should remain open to debate and inquiry rather than dismissing concerns as, in Patrick Moore's own words, "ignorant" or "hateful." The responsible path forward is one of critical evaluation, regulation, and sustainable agricultural practices, and definitely not the blind acceptance of GMOs that Patrick Moore wants to pave the way for. 

Read my rebuttal of the other Patrick Moore chapters here:

Patrick Moore Credibility
Chapter 1 Fact-check: Baobab Trees
Chapter 2 Fact-check: Coral Bleaching
Chapter 3 Fact-check: Carbon Dioxide
Chapter 4 Fact-check: Polar Bears
Chapter 5 Fact-check: Estimated Threats to Biodiversity
Chapter 6 Fact-check: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Chapter 7 Fact-check: Genetically Modified Foods