SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Prop 37: Why it's good that California said no to GMO labeling
In this guest article, scientist Daniel Hayden makes a case for why California's rejected Proposition 37, which would have required labeling for genetically modified food, was a bad idea.
Thu, Nov 08 2012 at 12:47 PM
Related Topics:
Photo: John Athayde/Flickr
A note from Shea: My friend Daniel Hayden is a scientist living in California who strongly opposed Proposition 37, a measure that would have required that food products made with genetically modified organisms to be labeled as such. I invited him to share his reasons here.
* * *
By Daniel Hayden
You know me. I sat beside you at the concert, jamming out with the rest of the crowd. I cheered when Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana and am a strong proponent of same-sex marriage. I think big business and their lobbying tactics are the greatest threat to our democracy and don’t get me started on the big financial institutions.
But I have a confession to make. I love genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
I earned my Ph.D. degree in plant molecular physiology at the University of Hawaii and have been studying plant biotechnology for almost 20 years. My goal was to use plants and sustainable agriculture to replace products from unsustainable sources like fossil fuels. It's a very green approach. Being technologically minded, I was fascinated by genetic engineering, so it broke my heart to see friends and like-minded individuals of my generation turn so quickly against the science of engineering the genetics of plants.
In our world today we are continually innovating and pushing our technological and scientific understanding. We hold everything in the palm of our hand through our cellphones, and we can connect with friends who are continents away. As a society we are moving into the cities and stacking ourselves in denser and denser developments, absorbing agricultural land and constructing huge buildings in which to work, live and play. If the trucks and trains that bring the food from the farms to our cities stopped today, our larders would be bare by the weekend. The supply chain that puts food on our tables is a complex system of growers, transportation, storage and distribution that has to work together in harmony in order to function.
Here is where Prop 37 comes into play. Thankfully this poorly worded proposition failed by a narrow margin on Tuesday — the people who voted YES don't have any idea of how dangerous it could have become. We eat GMOs everyday. With every bowl of cornflakes and every trip to the Mexican restaurant around the corner, you are eating a GMO. In fact, even certified organic foods can be comprised of no more than 5 percent GMO ingredients. If Prop 37 passed, you would be able to buy cornflakes without GMOs, but you would never know if they were in your burrito at your favorite restaurant. Seems a little leaky, doesn’t it? Every product in our supermarket would need a GMO label, something manufactures would be nuts to include for the other 49 states, resulting in two differentiating product streams. The cost of this would be passed on to consumers.
Few people, including myself, are against giving more information to consumers. What I am against is using scare tactics and misinformation. Labeling something as a GMO does nothing but intimidate the purchaser. It's hard to think of a more inflammatory word, when it comes to food, than "GMO." Now imagine that phrase being plastered in a big prominent sticker on products throughout the grocery store. Those three little letters say a lot, but are consumers educated enough to know what they really mean?
GMOs come in all shapes and sizes. Some are products made using GMO organisms, but do not actually contain the organism is question. Others GMO products like olive oil are a very specific substance of high purity. The olive tree might have been engineered but there are no detectable levels of engineered protein in the oil. That would require a label as well.
The science behind GMOs was sloppy when it first introduced, and the technology was not helped when some scientist came along and dumped a pound of corn pollen containing the Bt protein on a few butterflies. Other GMOs had what we call “selection markers” which are proteins conferring resistance to general antibiotics, or herbicides. These were carried in pollen and found in nearby weeds of the same species. Not ideal, I admit.
I am not here to defend Monsanto. I understand the perils of monoculture, herbicide usage and selling seeds to farmers that can’t be harvested and reseeded the next year (so called Terminator seeds). However, framing the entire concept of GMOs as evil because of Monsanto’s influence is frankly on the same level as homophobia, stereotyping or racism. Misinformed and nervous consumers are being tricked into thinking they are at risk, all because of a chosen few who have dedicated their lives to ridding the world of the supposed scourge of GMOs.
I am here to tell you that the seed biotechnology companies are more altruistic than you would believe. They are responsible for feeding the world and for helping make it profitable to be a farmer. They employ tens of thousands of people and support the entire food infrastructure of our great country. GMOs reduce the need for fertilizer, which in turn reduces our dependence on fossil fuels (most our nitrogen fertilizer is made using natural gas). GMOs also cut down on the need for pesticides and herbicides by engineering native means of plant defense. GMOs use water more efficiently and respond to heat and drought in a less dramatic fashion, which helps farmers cope with the changing climate. Our society is driving these changes, and it’s only fair that we give farmers the tools they need to endure a warming environment.
GMOs improve our health and nutrition. Third world countries benefit from increased amino acids in GMO rice that they couldn’t find elsewhere in their diets. Newly engineered tomatoes could one day help fight cancer. Don’t take my word for it, Google it and educate yourself.
Unfortunately people associate the term GMO with dead butterflies and cancer. Who knows how this happened. Chalk it up to bad press and a healthy dose of mythology. That is why just stamping ‘Contains GMO’ on a bag of chips does more harm than good. Explaining how far plant biology has come in the past 20 years is probably beyond the scope of this article, but this will give you some idea.
In a perfect world the label would be as follows:
The corn (DroughtGard maize) used in this product was genetically modified to withstand drought conditions without affecting biomass. DroughtGard maize contains the gene for “cold shock protein B” (cspB) from Bacillis subtilis. Cold shock proteins were discovered (and named) due to their rapid accumulation in cold shocked bacterial cells. Some CSPs such as CSPB act as RNA chaperones, which help to maintain normal physiological performance during stress events by binding and unfolding tangled RNA molecules so that they can function normally. Drought conditions result in 30-50% yield loss of native maize, while DroughtGard posts 11-21% yield gain in similar conditions. These proteins are produced in the leaves, stem, and roots of the maize, but are non-detectable in the kernel or edible seeds upon harvest. The cspB protein has been thoroughly tested for allergenic potential and passed both USDA and FDA requirements. Your continued support of GMO produce ensures a sustainable future under the threat of climate change and increasing water demand.
As you can see, this statement is quite a bit more informative than a big old “Contains GMO” sticker.
Let's increase information, awareness, and promote true sustainability with our food policies. Don’t support efforts that propagate fear just because it’s more convenient.
Guest writer Daniel Hayden is a next generation panoramic scientist who melds modern technological gadgetry with ancient scientific principals. His goal is to continue to innovate at all costs and let natural selection take it's course. When he's not potentially saving or destroying humanity, he likes snowboarding and hanging out with his Oriental shorthair cats.
Are you on Twitter? Follow me (@sheagunther) there, I give good tweets. And if you really like my writing, you can join my Facebook page.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- Watch: Sir David Attenborough deals with a band of cannibals the British way
- Yurts: Everything you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask
- Facepalm of the week: Non-GMO salt!?
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- What a grocery store without bees looks like
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 5 recipes for garlic scapes
- 12 commands every dog should know
- Too beautiful to be real? 16 surreal landscapes found on Earth
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
There is NOTHING good in GMO's for people who eat them or our environment. The only GOOD thing in GMO is for Monsatan, DuPond, and other chemical corps, who make load of profit by patenting life and selling this frankenseed to farmers. I switched to all home-made food, all organic, and small farm, where I know they do not use chemicals, or GMO crap. Dear author of this article, I think you have been eating too much GMO. Eat more. Meanwhile, I say thank you, not for me or my family.
Is labeling GMOs a scare tactic? or did you mean that when people really find out what is actually in their food they will be scared?
Why must we label food Organic and not gmo GMO. It makes no sense to be labelling the real food REAL and the fake food is unlabelled casting a hidden veil around the truth yet they can still put the words "Natural" on their products.
Lies.
Enter your comments
The solution, unlike how our culture typically deals with these kinds of decisions, is less government/regulation, not more. Why don't we simply ASSUME that if it's not labeled "non-GMO," then it probably has them? Then, we maintain our "freedom" of choice and the companies that go through the effort of producing products without GMO will "naturally" proper and the companies that can't will feel the effects of THE FREE MARKET!
What an idiot. Regardless of what you think you know about the safety of GMOs we have a RIGHT to know whether or not the product contains them. If its so safe and great for you than what is the difference. UGH. I really despise people like this author.
GMOs should be labeled like anything else is. If I buy a bar of chocolate, it tells me that it contains milk, right? well, if it contains GMO organisms it's only logical that it should say so as well. It is really as simple as that. If GMO producers want people to consume their products, it's then up to them to convince people that they are harmless. Tobacco companies managed that for a long time too, later we learned differently. Let's not repeat those mistakes again.
GMOs could be perfectly safe, but that's beside the point. I want information about what we are eating. I want labeling of what is modified, how it's modified, the reason it's modified, and the pesticides used on it. Information is not an enemy, why would labeling GMO foods intimidate anyone? Especially if data is readily available as to the safety of it. (or is it?) If it isn't then the problem is once again lack of information.
Please, READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE COMMENTING!
Also, you won't understand "what is modified, how it's modified, the reason it's modified". Do you have a degree in genetics and botany? Exactly.
I read the article. I have several science degrees including botany, environmental science, and chemistry. I agree that GMOs should be identified and labeled. I also believe in natural evolution. Don't be duped.
Dear Anonymous, thanks for sharing your opinion and your name. The only reason to have a Botany degree is to name and identify plants.
Genetically modified plants and foods are ones created in the laboratory. They are not created by cross breeding or cross pollinating in nature. GMOs are not food, they are ingredients meant to be grown, processed and placed in 'food products' to make them last long and not rot on the shelf in their packaging.
Hey Mr/Ms Anonymous, if I might translate your comment: "Sit down. Shut up. We know better than you do. We will tell you what to do with your own body and if you do not like it, it's because you are too stupid to recognize and understand the insights of the intellectual elite."
Or something like that...
Didn't you learn anything from the decades of the women's movement?
BP-Mary Nichols power play
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/
126 studies that are INDEPENDENTLY funded, that show the safety of GMO crops. I guess it's time to dismiss these as well.
Daniel, if they are so safe and the advantages of these foods are so pronounced, then label them so that those who want the advantages -- unlike us luddites who are too damned stupid to understand that man knows so much more than nature does about something that they've barely scraped the surface of -- can be sure to grab them first.
The rest of us are like women fighting for the right of self-determination of what happens with our own bodies.
Do you want to take away their right, too???
Did you read those studies? I think you didn't.
Pages