RFK Jr.’s push to reduce toxic chemicals in the food system is being co-opted by Big Ag, which is promoting genetically engineered microbes as “green” solutions—despite the serious, irreversible risks they pose to our soil, ecosystems, and health. Action Alert!
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- Agribusiness giants are rolling out genetically engineered (GE) microbes as eco-friendly alternatives to fertilizers, but these living organisms can reproduce, mutate, and spread uncontrollably once released.
- Field tests show little evidence that GE microbes reliably improve crop yields, while scientists warn they could disrupt soil ecosystems, transfer genes unpredictably, and contribute to new pathogens.
- Despite profound risks, GE microbes are poorly regulated under outdated laws, leaving ourselves and the environment vulnerable to an untested and irreversible biological experiment.
Americans are waking up to the dangers of a food system saturated with chemicals—and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s call to reduce agricultural toxins is resonating with millions. But behind the scenes, the agribusiness giants responsible for polluting our soil and waterways are scrambling to rebrand themselves as environmental saviors. How? With a new breed of genetically engineered (GE) microbes—living organisms altered in the lab and released into the earth under the guise of “green” innovation.
These microbes are being hailed as the next miracle fix: a supposedly natural way to cut fertilizer use, boost crop yields, and fight climate change. But beneath the marketing lies a sobering truth. Once unleashed, GE microbes can’t be recalled. They spread. They evolve. And no one—least of all the corporations racing to profit from them—fully understands the consequences.
If we don’t act now, the soil beneath our feet may become the testing ground for an uncontrolled experiment that could reshape ecosystems, food systems, and public health for generations. And not in a good way.
The Rise of GE Microbes—and the Hype Behind Them
The microbial products market is booming. With global revenue already at $15 billion annually, it’s projected to reach $25 billion by 2030. Leading the charge is Pivot Bio. The company has raised $430 million in venture capital to develop and commercialize nitrogen-producing GE bacteria that it claims can replace synthetic fertilizers. As the first GE microbial product brought to market for soil application, Pivot Bio’s flagship offering, PROVEN, is being positioned as a game-changer for climate-smart agriculture.
Industry leaders, including Pivot Bio and Ginkgo Bioworks, are lobbying hard to ensure these new tools are viewed as sustainable solutions. These companies are trying to convince lawmakers that GE microbes as capable of reducing runoff, improving nutrient efficiency, and boosting crop resilience. But experts are sounding the alarm: the rush to deploy GE microbes is happening faster than science, oversight, or public discourse can keep up.
There’s another small problem, though: these products don’t seem to work. Extensive field testing across multiple states in the North West found that the application of GE soil microbes failed in most cases to increase crop yields. The testing, carried out by North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension, across 61 site-years in corn, spring wheat, sugar beet, and canola, found that that commercial GE nitrogen-fixing products—such as Envita, Utrisha, ProveN, and MicroAZ—offered no consistent yield benefits over conventional nitrogen fertilization alone, with only two instances showing modest gains equivalent to just 12–20 pounds of nitrogen per acre.
Living Pollution That Can’t Be Recalled
What makes GE microbes particularly alarming is their potential to become what scientists are calling “living pollution.” Unlike chemical pesticides, which degrade over time, these living organisms can persist, replicate, and spread indefinitely. Their microscopic size and resilience mean they can be transported by wind, rain, and even across borders—a phenomenon referred to as “genetic rain.” Studies have shown that viable bacteria can travel across continents in dust clouds and settle in alpine lakes or other sensitive ecosystems via rainfall.
Once released, GE microbes may also engage in horizontal gene transfer, a process by which microbes exchange genetic material with other species in the environment. This is the mechanism behind the rapid spread of antibiotic microbial resistance. If GE microbes transfer engineered traits or unintended mutations to wild species, the consequences could be unpredictable and irreversible—altering microbial communities in soil and or even the human gut, increasing pathogenicity, and disrupting ecosystem functions.
There are also evolutionary concerns. GE microbes may mutate over time, altering their behavior, survival traits, or interactions with other organisms. Crops, pests, and microbes could co-evolve in unpredictable ways, possibly leading to resistant pests or even new pathogens. As with antibiotics or glyphosate, overuse of an engineered, biological “solution” can eventually undermine its effectiveness.
All of this is compounded by our deep ignorance about microbial ecosystems. The vast majority of soil microbes remain unidentified and unstudied. The rhizosphere—the complex web of microbial life surrounding plant roots—is foundational to plant health, soil fertility, soil conservation and water management, and global nutrient cycles. Tampering with it through the open-air release of engineered organisms could have cascading effects, not just on agriculture but on planetary systems like the carbon and nitrogen cycles on which all life—including humans—depend.
An Unregulated Frontier
Despite these unique risks, there is no specific federal legislation in the US designed to regulate genetically modified microbes. Instead, oversight is cobbled together from existing laws that were never designed to address living, engineered organisms capable of reproducing and spreading in the environment.
Under the current “Coordinated Framework,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) divide responsibilities for GE organisms. But this framework was built decades ago to regulate things like synthetic pesticides or drugs, not living systems that evolve, adapt, and spread. As a result, GE microbes are often regulated in the same way as their natural counterparts, despite the very different risks they pose.
For instance, microbial pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but the standards for approval are shockingly low. Companies need only show that their product, when used according to instructions, “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” There is no mandate for long-term environmental safety studies, nor any requirement to demonstrate field-level effectiveness before market approval.
The EPA can also regulate GE microbes under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but only if they contain genes from a different microbial genus—excluding the vast majority of gene-edited microbes. Meanwhile, USDA oversight is limited to microbes that pose a known “plant pest” risk, and even that is applied inconsistently under the agency’s SECURE rule.
The bottom line: there is no consistent, precautionary system in place to assess the environmental or human health risks posed by GE soil microbes.
A Better Way Forward
We know that genetically modified microbes, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are not part of a healthy, regenerative, or sustainable future. What does offer real promise are agricultural approaches that work in harmony with nature. Regenerative agriculture is at the forefront of this movement, and exciting innovations are emerging. At a strategic meeting earlier this year—attended by ANH’s founder and executive director, Rob Verkerk, PhD—we learned of efforts to integrate regenerative practices with AI-driven soil analytics to significantly enhance soil health, soil microbial and organic content, and ultimately, the nutrient density of American-grown food. The side effect: lowering the cost of inputs, increasing agricultural yields, and increasing farmers’ incomes. This forward-thinking proposal aims to shift incentives away from engineering ultraprocessed foods for shelf life and “bliss point” appeal, and toward whole foods with high nutrient-densities.
This is the future we should be building: not swapping out dependence on chemical inputs to dependence on GE soil microbes.
Action Is Urgently Needed
Framing GE microbes as “biologicals” obscures the reality: these are genetically altered organisms with the potential to irreversibly change our soil, food systems, and health. As consumers, farmers, scientists, and citizens, we must demand real oversight, full transparency, and a science-guided, risk-aware approach. The future of our soil—and everything it supports—depends on it.
Action Alert!
