GMO Food Labeling Initiative Gets Its Facts Wrong; 'I'm Not a Scientist,' Says Sponsor

GMO labeling.jpg
The Secretary of State's office yesterday received signatures for an initiative that would require genetically-modified foods to be labeled. Not a bad idea, on the face of it. The more consumers know about what they're buying, the better, right?

*See Also: Justin Solondz Torches a Movement

Toby Bradshaw, Target of Famous Arson, Hunts Elk, Praises Vegetarianism, and Defends Genetic Engineering

Unfortunately, there's not much consumer education going on in the nascent I-522 campaign, which doesn't even seem to understand what GMOs are.

Here's the definition offered on the campaign website:

GMO foods, also known as genetically engineered foods, are created by taking DNA from one species and forcing it into other unrelated species - mixing plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes in combinations that cannot occur in nature and are experimental.

Talking to SW, initiative sponsor Chris McManus, an advertising executive and vegan from Tacoma, elaborates: "To put it in brass tacks, GMOs are something that you don't see in nature: blue jays mating with mocking birds, dogs mating with cats."

It's a description obviously designed to play into fears that GMOs are some kind of Frankenstein science, a notion that once prompted a group of foolish, young environmental activists to firebomb the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture.

The fact is, though, that GMOs aren't necessarily the result of mixing DNA from "unrelated" species. Gülhan Ünlü, a professor at the School of Food Science operated jointly by Washington State University and the University of Idaho, explains that genetic modification could involve combining desirable traits from different varieties of the same species.

Take wheat, she says. One variety might withstand extreme temperatures, or carry a natural resistance to insects. Or a certain type of wheat might yield a big harvest. You can take the gene responsible for one trait or another and insert it into the DNA of a type of wheat that has proved valuable for other reasons. This is commonly done by traditional crossbreeding, but it could also be done by genetic engineering.

Toby Bradhaw, the University of Washington scientist who was the target of the 2001 UW firebombing, also works on genetic engineering--within one species of flower. As he has pointed out to SW, genetic engineering is a very broad term. Essentially, you take a gene from one plant or organism and you pop it into another. Or, as Ünlü says, you simply "play around" with the DNA of one particular organism.

"Well, you know, I'm not a scientist," McManus responds. "I work in media. Those kinds of questions I'll have to defer to later in the campaign."

But to delve into the issue more than McManus apparently has, even some types of GMOs that sound scary might not be. Ünlü works in the area of genetically-modified microbes, some of which are used for food production. There's an enzyme called rennet, for instance, that is used to make many kinds of cheeses. The problem with natural rennet is that it comes from the stomach of a baby cow. That makes obtaining it difficult, not to mention objectionable to those concerned with animal welfare.

So years ago, Ünlü explains, scientists began producing rennet in the laboratory by cloning the enzyme in a baceteria--the E. coli bacteria to be precise. Obviously, nothing is more dangerous for human consumption than some varieties of E. coli, but Ünlü insists this variety is perfectly safe. In fact, most cheese is now made from rennet cloned in this way.

Ünlü calls this procedure a "wonderful" use of genetic-modification technology that not only responds to animal rights concerns, but also allows for cheap and mass production of an important enzyme.

And that's the thing about genetic modification. The technology is not inherently bad or good. It's all in how you use it. Is it sometimes used in problematic ways? Absolutely. Most famously, agribusiness often creates herbicide-resistant crops with genetic modification, and there is some evidence that this has led to more use of herbicides in farming.

The public should know more about the pros and cons of genetic engineering, given how ubiquitous it has become. However, what people need to know--the precise way the technology has been used in a given food and any relevant concerns-- can't really fit on a label.

CLARIFICATION: McManus called us to emphasize that he is in no way associated with the group of activists who once bombed the UW.

comments powered by Disqus