Bite Back with Abbey Sharp - The SHOCKING Truth About GMOs & Organics with Dr Jessica Steier

Episode Date: August 26, 2025

Here’s a run down of what we discussed in today’s episode:IntroductionWhat “Organic” Really Means (According to the USDA)The Appeal to Nature Fallacy: Are Organic Pesticides Actually Safer?The Dirty Dozen List: Science or Scare Tactic?GMOs Explained: What They Are — and What They’re NotDo Organic Foods Have Better Nutrition?Why Small Nutrient Differences Are a Red HerringValid Criticisms: GMOs, Regenerative Ag & Herbicide UseThe Sustainability Case: Can GMOs Help Fight Climate Change?Why Experts Advocate a “Both/And” Approach to Food SystemsCutting Through Food FearmongeringChoosing More Plants Over Perfect Labels Check in with today’s amazing guest: Website: unbiasedscience.comPodcast: Unbiased Science podcast@unbiasedscipodInstagram: @dr.jesssteierReferences:Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in SoybeansDisclaimer: The content in this episode is for educational and entertainment purposes only and is never a substitute for medical advice. If you’re struggling with with your mental or physical health, please work one on one with a health care provider.If you have heard yourself in our discussion today, and are looking for support, contact the free NEDIC helpline at 1-866-NEDIC-20 or go to eatingdisorderhope.com.  🥤 Check out my 2-in-1 Plant Based Probiotic Protein Powder, neue theory at www.neuetheory.com or @neuetheory and use my promo code BITEBACK20 to get 20% off your order! Don’t forget to Please subscribe on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review! It really helps us out. ✉️ SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTERS ⤵️Neue Theory newsletterAbbey's Kitchen newsletter 🥞 FREE HUNGER CRUSHING COMBO™ E-BOOK! 💪🏼 FREE PROTEIN 101 E-BOOK! 📱 Follow me! Instagram: @abbeyskitchenTikTok: @abbeyskitchenYouTube: @AbbeysKitchen My blog, Abbey’s Kitchen www.abbeyskitchen.comMy book, The Mindful Glow Cookbook affiliate link: https://amzn.to/3NoHtvf If you liked this podcast, please like, follow, and leave a review with your thoughts and let me know who you want me to discuss next!

What is really frustrating is organizations like the EWG, when they put out lists like the Dirty Dozen, we're discouraging people from eating fruits and vegetables because we're scaring the crap out of them. We're telling them that conventional produce is riddled with things like pesticides and, of course, the devil's and the details there. Welcome to another episode of Bite Back with Abby Sharp, where I dismantled diaculture. rules, call out the charlatans spinning the pseudoscience, and help you achieve food freedom for good. Today's episode is going to be a real heavy hitter, as we're going to be diving deep into the science of organics and GMOs. We have been told that organic food is inherently safer, healthier, and more pure, and that GMOs are something to fear, avoid, label, and eliminate. But what if the reality is a lot more complex? What if the labels we trust are

distracting us from bigger questions about how our food is grown, who controls it, and what makes a diet nourishing or sustainable? In today's episode, we are peeling back the layers of one of the most emotionally charged and misunderstood topics in the nutrition world, GMOs versus organic food. Joining me to unpack all of this is one of my favorite fellow science communicators, Dr. Jessica Steyer. Jess is the CEO of Unbiased Science, which specializes in combating health and science misinformation. And she's also the host of the popular podcast of the same name. We'll explore the science, myths, marketing, and deeper consequences of turning how food is grown into a moral battlefield. Now, before we get into it, I want to make it absolutely clear that this is an important.

incredibly complicated, multifaceted, and nuanced discussion, and we are going to barely be able to scratch the surface. I'm going to try to give you some of the most important bits of knowledge from my perspective as a dietitian, but this is by no means going to cover every criticism or concern out there. I also want to make it clear that we are not going to be getting into American politics. And most importantly, this episode is not sponsored by like big GMO or anything like that. So as Jess's podcast handle would suggest, we are going to be coming at this as unbiased as we can. All right, now that I got that preamble over with, let's dive in. Hello, Jess. I am so excited to get talking about this. I'm so excited to talk about

this. Thanks for having me. I mean, isn't it just so unfortunate that these kind of conversations almost feel like scary to have as a science communicator? Because like people get very aggressively defensive about their position. But like you're the unbiased science queen. So I'm hoping we bring that energy into the conversation. It's so important that we come at this with knowledge and a good unbiased perspective. I, you know what? I really appreciate that. And I want to acknowledge that there's a lot of strong opinions and I guess people would say not opinions, a lot of strong thoughts and positions on both sides of the discussion, I'd say. And I feel like, yes, there is a lot of anxiety talking about this, not only because people get really defensive, but then you have the science people

really digging into every little thing that you say. Yep. And I always give the disclaimer, Abby, that I'm, you know, I'm not a dietitian, I'm not a food scientist. What I am, I'm a public health scientists and I'm trained in the appraisal of evidence. Yes. So I had to do a little homework actually preparing for this and looking at what studies have been done so that I could really take an unbiased approach, you know, to this conversation. I love that. I love that.

Okay. So there's obviously a lot of myths and misconceptions on like what organic food is and what it is not. And just to set the stage, could you just like define organic as per, you know, USDA standards? Yes, yes, yes. And I love that we're setting the stage here because I think that organic doesn't mean what a lot of people think at me. Right. Exactly. So for the specific USDA requirements, there's a land requirement. So land must have had no prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before the harvest of an organic crop. And in terms of what are

prohibited substances, I'm sure that's the logical next question. So the basic rule, synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically allowed, and natural substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited. So what's prohibited, most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides plus genetic engineering. There are exceptions. So when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment. The use of genetic engineering, nearing is prohibited, as well as ionizing radiation and sewage sludge is also prohibited. I'd say that one of the biggest misconceptions is that organic produce is grown without the

use of pesticides. But this is actually a misconception, and they can and often are grown with pesticides. They're just organic. Right. And the very last thing in terms of labeling requirements, so for something to be labeled as 100% organic, these are products sold. labeled or represented as organic must have at least 95% certified organic content. And then you'll also see the made with organic label. And these must have at least 70% certified organic content. Yeah. So I think like one thing we talk a lot about on this channel is like this appeal to nature's fallacy, which is this assumption that just because it's natural, it's safer or healthier or better. But like you said, organic foods still use pestis.

when they're growth. They're just of natural origin. But do we know for certain that using organic pesticides are safer or healthier or better for the environment or for our bodies than synthetic? Okay, I am so glad that you asked this. Overall, overwhelmingly the evidence points to no, there are no significant or clinically relevant differences between organic and conventionally grown produce. There are sometimes minor differences. I saw, some studies that did find some minor differences, but again, we're not talking about anything clinically relevant, some things like the presence of a slightly higher antioxidant levels in organic produce, but nothing that would meaningfully impact our health. Now, the big thing

I hear about is often that it's better for the environment, but this is also not necessarily true. So in many instances, I actually found some evidence that organic food can be worse for the environment. You know, it's sort of one of those things. If you're looking for evidence to point one way or another, I think you can find it. Sure. But in terms of land use, so this is a really big one. Conventional farming requires less land than organic farming across all food categories. So there was this major study done. I could send you a link after the fact. But the difference was pronounced with regard to organic animal products, which actually require almost twice as much land to produce and their non-organic counterparts. And this is largely because organic systems

prohibit many synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that actually increase yields, right? And remember that organic pesticides and other, you know, fungicides and all these other things, we often have to use more of them than we do their synthetic counterparts. And so that also has to be, you know, kept into consideration. And I don't need to get. two in the weeds here, but also in terms of water pollution. So on average, non-organic farms did cause less utrification and acidification than organic farms. While synthetic fertilizers release nutrients in response to the need of crop, the release of nutrients from manure depends more on environmental conditions, such as temperature or soil moisture. So as a result, manure often

releases more nutrients than is necessary. And then we have to remember that those things are going to flow into the nearby waterways. And, you know, that could actually lead to more water pollution than synthetic fertilizers. So I did want to call that out as well. These are things that I feel like people don't often consider when we think about environmental impacts. Right. Right. No, I know. And kind of like talk about going back to the kind of nutritional differences. You're right. Like the general consensus is no major differences, you know, between conventional or GMO versus organic, non-GMO. And like, you know, like I'm all about nuance and kind of like transparency. And I feel like, like I like to get granular on things so people don't just like see a science communicators.

It's just like quote unquote hiding the truth. Right. And so like you said, like there are these tiny differences. So like, for example, organic crops had 17% more, you know, higher concentrations of antioxidants, slightly higher amounts of vitamin C. You know, organic greens had slightly lower levels of cadmium, which is a heavy metal. Organic meat and dairy, slightly higher levels of omega-3s. But I think, like, you know, for me, it's like, are those the things that are going to move the needle on our health? No, right?

Like, it's a little bit of a red herring and, like, a distraction from, like, bigger systemic issues that need to be addressed. Absolutely. And what is really frustrating is, and we could certainly get into this, but organizations like the EWG when they put out lists like the dirty dozen. We're discouraging people from eating fruits and vegetables because we're scaring the crap out of them, right? We're telling them that somehow conventional produce is riddled with things like pesticide.

Of course, you know, the devil is in the details there. We're talking about minute levels that are not shown to have any detrimental impact on our health. And we see that this is actually scaring people away from eating fruits and veggies. we need to eat more fruits and veggies regardless of whether they're conventionally grown or organically grown, right? And then the real, I know, Thorne in my side is that this is going to impact people in lower SES brackets in particular, right? These are people who can't necessarily afford or access organic foods that almost always carry a higher price tag, right? And so now

we're telling them or making them choose between something that we're telling them is potentially harmful and something that they can't afford. And oftentimes they'll just forego eating these foods altogether. So it drives me bananas. Yeah, yeah. And just to kind of like back to the like is organic pesticides safer or healthier, you know, a lot of natural things, this appeal to nature's fallacy, a lot of natural things are very much toxic, are very, you know, even when some of our earlier organic pesticides had to be, like, pulled because they were shown to be highly toxic to, you know, wildlife and even to humans. So it's not always so clear as like naturals, healthier, natural's safer. Natural is better. And I'm not saying that, you know,

organic pesticides are bad either. I'm just saying that at the end of the day, the great news is is that these are all held to very high standards when it comes to regulation. And, you know, they're used well under a conservative threshold of harm for human health. So, you know, we kind of have to weigh their toxicity level against how much is used and how often. I mean, I always think about, I'm sure you remember the like, you know, the war on glyphosate when it came to a lot of these, you know, moms across America or the EWG calling out, you know, these specific these yeah i know like the bonza chickpea pasta and how many like glyphosate residues were on that or oatmeal the glyphosate residues on all of these kind of common foods it's really scary for a lot of mom specifically right like a lot of parents right yes it's my and it's so bad because

these are these are accessible foods for a lot of folks and nutritious foods in a lot of cases like oatmeal and chickpea pasta i did the math one time i did the math and if we were to use the e-us very daily intake levels, you'd have to eat 350 bowls of cereal every day or like 200 bowls of bonds of pasta to reach the limit that already is 100-fold safety margin built in. And you'd have to do that for like life to see any kind of negative impact. Okay. So you and I are on the same page because we also did the math and unbiased science. And we've done some posts. I could share these with you. But we did those exact calculations from a, you know, toxicological perspective. And this gets to the crux of the issue for me with some of this oversimplification.

It's like the mere presence of a substance is not equate to harm, right? So people often confuse hazard versus risk. So something has the potential to harm us. But then we need to get really specific in terms of how much we'd need to be exposed to actually experience risk, to actually experience the harm, right? And so to your point, when we did the calculations for the Bonza pasta, for, I don't know, we've done this for Girl Scout cookies, all the latest things, right? Cheerios because there was the Chlormaquot concern, which is the plant barrier, the glyphosate

concerns with the oatmeal and all the things. And it's like, yeah, if you're eating a thousand bowls or whatever it is of Cheerios and Wednesday, it's just so unrealistic. And I don't understand, it really drives me crazy that we're causing so much anxiety, undo anxiety for people and parents in particular who are thinking about, oh my gosh, am I harming my child? but when you actually look at the numbers, we're talking about this hypothetical, such unrealistic risk. And there was this study actually that I came about when I was doing my homework ahead of this episode. There was a study that tested residues on produce, and it was over 99% of residues were well below safety standards established by the EPA. They're so incredibly

low. We're talking parts per billion levels that we'd essentially have to eat a toxic level of any of these foods before, like, I mean, excuse me, unrealistic levels as we're discussing, right? Levels of these foods before even reaching a level where the pesticide could even hypothetically have negative effects, right? So, yeah, it's, and we test these things. There's so much regulation. I'm so sorry, go on. There really is. No, no. 100%, you know, especially with these kinds of foods, these unrealistic portion sizes that you would need to consume, like you would die from fiber content or like iron content or like any other vitamin that we like, that we want, any of those vitamins that are in these foods, you would die

from, like from, you know, toxicity from one of these vitamins well before you'd be like slightly harmed by the residues of the pesticides. So it's, it is really frustrating what we're up against as science communicators. And you know, one thing you kind of brought up a moment ago was the EWG and this like dirty dozen, clean 15. Like, is there any truth to this? Okay. So I'm glad that you raised this. So the EWG, they use six indicators. with their methodology. And I hesitate to even use that word. There's so many issues with their methodology, but here are their six indicators. So it's percentage of samples tested

with detectable residues, percentage of samples with two or more pesticides detected, average number of pesticides found on a single sample, average amount of all pesticides found measured in parts per million, maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample, and total number of pesticides found on the commodity. Only one of these indicators that are used by the EWG even crudely considers the amount of pesticide residue that are detected on whatever it is that they're actually testing. So for me, if you're asking me from a scientific perspective, this just feels like a whole lot of fearmongering without that nuance, without that very important context of levels of exposure. They're just saying like, yeah, we detected,

a pesticide on this, you know, on this strawberry. And then they're scaring the poop out of people, you know, that you can't eat it because we detected pesticide. And PS, when we test organic produce, we're also detecting pesticide. So it just, it feels very unbalanced and biased. Very. I know. I've talked a lot about my distressed in the EWG in an episode I did with Dr. Michelle Wong, who's also amazing. But like, yeah, like these, their recommendations not granted in great methodology or evidence, often informed by who pays to be featured on their platform. So we really should not be seeing the EWG as some kind of like unbiased, trusted source for health and nutrition recommendations, period.

Period. Yeah, they've got their own agenda. And can I, this is sort of a little tangential, but I was invited recently to speak at this event. It was a food event. There were lots of people. There were policy people. There were industry people.

There were agriculture people. It was a whole hodgepodge of people in the food space. And I was asked to sit on. a panel with EWG. And I'm going to tell you right now, I had reservations because the way that they message is like the antithesis of how I hope to message and very else all the new ones. But I was convinced to sit on this panel and I was told, oh, it'll be collegial. We have to have these conversations. Otherwise, we're talking past each other, especially with the Maha movement now. Like there's this, you know, huge focus on the foods of reading. So I'm like, all right,

let me do this. Let me have this conversation. Anyway, long. story short of ended up being a setup and the person from EWG was not there in good faith and it was this pre like planned rant he had a speech it was this like anti-fda anti food industry like bombshell and then he dropped off so we couldn't even have the conversation he just like dropped the grenade pulled the pin and ran away so anyway I just wanted to spill the tea a little bit it was just really frustrating because we do have to have these conversations. You know, a lot of people do follow the EWG and buy into this, you know, messaging. And we have to have these difficult conversations. But we have to all sit at the table and, you know, be there in good faith and willing

to have the conversation. So anyway, just wanted to share that. Yeah. 100%. Yeah, that's a red flag. If you drop the grenade and dip before anyone else can rebut or say their piece, that's a red flag. Yeah. You know, that's not really great science communication. Right. Okay, so I want to kind of get into the world of GMOs because we know, as you mentioned, like one of the kind of rules of organic is you cannot have genetically modified crops. Can you just explain like what is a GMO? Like, what is it not? Because I think the name conjures up all these like Franken food images for people. Can you just kind of briefly explain like what it even is? Oh my gosh. I'm so glad you used that term Frankenfood because that is totally what people are envisioning. So scientists create GMO foods by introducing genetic material or DNA from a different organism through genetic engineering. It's unbelievably precise, it's very, very regulated, and it can achieve in years what traditional breeding might take decades to accomplish. And it is very commonly used today. I can sort of shift gears and chat about that, if that's cool. I don't think people realize that GMOs are commonly used, right?

So at least 90% of soy, cotton, and corn are grown through genetic techniques. There are some fresh fruits and vegetables that are available in GMO varieties, including things like potatoes and squash and apples, papayas, and pineapples. There has been so much testing of GMOs. This is one of those things I really don't understand. where the hate for GMOs has come from. I think it just has to do with what you were talking about before, Abby, this appeal to nature. Right, right.

And this idea that like we're messing with nature and it's creating this, yeah, this Franken food, right, that's somehow dangerous. But we have looked at this a million ways. And GMO foods are just as safe as regular foods. And there are so many benefits to them. So many benefits. There is no, you know, major. differences nutritionally. There was a major review of like a 1700 studies. Again, slightly higher anti-accident levels in some cases, but not going to move the needle. And in some cases, like the

nutrient composition can actually be enhanced. So like the best example is this like golden rice, which was engineered to produce beta carotene to prevent deficiencies in a lot of developing countries. And it worked. It's like this saved people's lives. Right. And high oleic acid soybeans, again, modified to have more mono and saturated fats, kind of like olive oil. So basically to enhance the nutrient composition. And not only that, but also GMOs can also help us use less or spray less pesticides. So it's like an interesting thing. I wonder how people who are concerned about pesticides feel about GMOs, because we can, farmers can spray less pesticide when they plant GMO crops. This saves money. It reduces the amount of pesticides that end up

on our crops. We also see insect resistant GM crops have also been widely adopted over 90% of corn, soybeans and cotton are GM for insect resistance. I mean, it's just, it's incredible. They're reducing the need to till the soil to control weeds. No till planting helps to improve soil health, reduce soil erosion, lower fuel and labor use. Like there are so many environmental benefits actually of using GMOs. Yeah. And obviously, again, we're coming at this as unbiased as we can. I like to address the, you know, valid criticisms.

And a lot of folks say that, you know, GMOs may be kind of just like a Band-Aid solution for the environment. I may divert attention from like more truly regenerative practices like crop rotation. And another big criticism is that these like herbicide tolerant GMO crops like Roundup ready corn, for example, or soy. may actually, you know, in the future or down the road, it result in increased herbicide application. How worried should we be about these things? So this is a bit outside my area of expertise, but I did do some digging.

I did some homework. I agree with you. I think it is a legitimate concern. Most GMO crops are resistant to herbicides like glyphosate, which can lead to increased herbicide use over time. I know that this is something that is being carefully studied. GM technology adoption, though, overall, this is what I found in my research, has still reduced chemical pesticide use by around 37% overall with massive reductions in insecticide use. Wow.

But to your point, I think you're right, like GMOs should maybe complement, not replace those good agricultural practices. You mentioned like crop rotation and integrated pest management. but I'd say that overall the technology does still support many sustainable practices. So it's about finding that balance and using them together. It's not an overall replacement. So in total agreement. Yeah.

Obviously the discussion is so nuanced. And there's like a risk benefit analysis to everything, which is why, you know, from what I've read, a lot of experts are now advocating for this like both and approach where biotech is used when it supports resilience and equity, but that we should still be focusing on these regenerative practices and local food systems as well. It's kind of like doesn't need to be all or nothing or one or the other. We have covered a lot. And I'm curious. And I'm curious if you had like one take home, message for folks who just feel constantly bombarded with like all this fear mongering on pesticides and GMOs and biotechnology and food safety. What would it be? I would say that our food

supply, and I think you noted this earlier, Abby, you know, whether conventional, organic, GMO, non-GMO, whatever it is, it is remarkably safe. The real health risks come from not eating enough fruits and vegetables, not from the farming methods that are used to produce them. So, So I would say don't let perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to nutrition. Don't fall prey to this appeal to nature fallacy. A lot of the times these synthetic alternatives or genetic modifications can actually improve our efficiencies, be better for the environment. So I understand the concerns.

I understand the questions. But I would say just focus more on the big picture versus things like very trace residue. you know, pesticide residues on our food, which are not going to have any material or, you know, clinical impact on our health. Of course. Just get more of those fruits and veggies in your body. It doesn't matter how they're grown. So, so helpful.

That is amazing. I really appreciate your time, Jess. And for folks who are not already following Unbiased Science Pot on social media and also wherever you get your podcast, definitely get on it because there's so much content. It's so rich. So I will be leaving links to that in the show notes below. So thank you again. Thank you so much for having me. This is great.

That was such a big conversation. And obviously such a teeny tiny glimpse into what could be covered because there are so many layers of this onion to unpeel. But what I hope people take away from this is that I am not like pro or anti-GMOs or organics. I fully respect the concerns and criticisms on both sides of the. these issues. And even though I don't personally buy a lot of organic food myself, I think there are tons of valid arguments here to choose organic at an individual level. But as a science communicator, I am far more interested in large-scale population health. And I do worry that fear-based messaging around conventional produce, like the kind that implies you're poisoning your kids if

their goldfish isn't organic, doesn't just create unnecessary anxiety. It actually distracts us from the much more pressing issues in public health like food insecurity, economic sustainability, and overall diet quality. Like if we put as much energy into screaming about the fact that only one in 10 adults are meeting their recommended intake for fruits and vegetables as we do about GMOs or conventionally grown apples, we would surely not be in the place we're in now with public health. And research has shown that anti-conventional produce messaging simply results in people just consuming less fruits and vegetables. Like, how is that a win for public health? This just furthers the food inequality divide and makes our most vulnerable populations more susceptible to chronic disease. In reality, the health benefits of adding more whole plant-based foods, whether they're organic or not, far outweighed. the incremental differences between farming methods.

So, in other words, choosing an apple over an ultra-processed organic snack has an infinitely more impressive ROI than choosing an organic apple over a conventionally grown one. We can also look at this on the flip side, where terms like organic and non-GMO possess such strong health halos that we extrapolate their supposed healthfulness to the whole food. But like, an organic non-GMO cookie is still a cookie with the same amount of calories and sugar and fat regardless of what kind of pesticides were used to grow the raw ingredients. So again, these are the conversations we should be getting loud about because it's where the biggest wins for public health truly lie.

But I think we've produced a lot of food for thought here. So I'm going to put a pin in this for today, as I'm sure we can have multiple conversations with countless perspectives and experts in the future. And I'm really excited to do that here on bite back. So if you have specific questions that we didn't get to answering or discussing today, please leave me a comment. I read all of them. And I really do use those comments to inform future episodes. But thanks again to Dr. Jessica Steyer for helping me bite back against food fearmongering. Signing off with Science and Sass. I'm Abby Sharp. Thanks for listening. You know,