On Prop 37 and Genetic Modification

This is probably the California proposition I've heard talked about most, and it happens to be the one I care about the most. Prop 37, if effective in convincing agribusiness to abandon GM crops, would be expensive, but I'm more concerned about the expense of the lawsuit wars it would open up and the complete lack of impact it's likely to have on anything and everything.

Since the idea of Prop 37 is to give consumers choice, let's investigate that. First of all, the idea of labeling is to provide information, but it turns out to be information we already have. Essentially all conventional cotton, canola, corn and soybean products will be at least partially derived (and typically mostly derived) from GM crops. After that, sugar beets, squash and papaya are the only remaining crops for which commercial GM crops can be found. No genetically modified animals have been approved by the FDA. So, not a whole lot of uncertainty to be resolving there. Second of all, those opposed to or afraid of GMOs who want products containing one of these seven crops can buy organic or foods labelled GMO-free.

With this in mind, it's really very difficult to interpret Prop 37 as anything but a referendum on genetic modification itself. Unfortunately, the public understanding of genetic modification is rife with misinformation. There are a number of myths about genetically modified crops that I'd like to dispell (I'd like to credit NPR for some of the material here):

"Everything is GMO these days" and "We don't know what's GMO and what's not"
Like I said-- there isn't much mystery about what is or isn't genetically modified and only seven crops are even potentially GMO-- every tomato you can find in a store, no matter how anemically pinkish and tasteless, is GMO-free.

"Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen"
This has more to do with Monsanto than GMOs, really, but this is a myth. The full explanation can be found on the previously-mentioned NPR article.

"GMO crops give people allergic reactions"
Genetic modification that may introduce allergens into crops is something the FDA specifically prohibits, looks out for and makes sure doesn't happen.

"Seeds from GMOs are sterile"
Way back in 1998, there was a big controversy when Monsanto suggested making GMOs with "terminator genes", which would make crops that could otherwise be replanted act instead like hybrid seedless watermelon seeds-- farmers would have to keep coming back to get their fix. The public outcry over this was enormous and Monsanto quickly shelved the idea, never to revisit it.

"GMO crops have animal genes in them"
Like the terminator gene, this was something people became very worried about in the late nineties. There was some conception of genetic modification creating half-animal frankenplants-- a silly fear that grossly overestimates our ability to change the genetic make-up of organisms. Nonetheless, US law prohibits inserting animal genes into crops.

"GMO crops are poorly understood"
This last one I'm going to take some time with.

The testing required for FDA approval of a new GMO is very expensive-- to the tune of 50+ million dollars. This is the reason that only a handful of crop varieties are genetically modified-- most vegetables don't have enough market share to justify such an expense (squash and papaya with virus resistance genes inserted were licensed before FDA approval became so expensive). Part of the testing is knowing exactly where the inserted gene is (transgene is the word used in science). There is also thorough testing of the gene product, or the protein that the gene codes for, to ensure that it is safe for human consumption. So, for every commercial GMO, we know exactly where the transgene is, what protein it codes for and we have extensively tested the protein for safety. To quote this article, "every major scientific authority on the subject – from the American Medical Association to the National Academies of Science to the American Dietetic Association to the World Health Organization – has confirmed the safety of eating currently approved foods made with biotechnology."

Genetic modification has been used in science since the early 70's, and for the last two decades transgenic organisms have been one of the most important tools used by scientists to learn about cell biology. I've personally genetically modified E. coli and I've worked with many strains of transgenic C. elegans. Those who understand the science of genetic modification and have personally worked with genetically modified organisms overwhelmingly support genetic modification as a technology to improve agricultural crops' productivity, nutritional content, disease resistance, environmental tolerance, etc., not to mention non-agricultural uses like making insulin and other drugs. Indeed, a number of Nobel Prize-winning scientists have come out against Prop 37.

At the end of the day, whether or not Prop 37 passes, I hope its existence on the ballot encourages conversation about genetically modified crops and that the public comes to a clearer understanding of what genetically modified food is, because there is a lot of misplaced fear. With a little knowledge, consumers can avoid GM food if they want, but GM food is unequivocally safe and therefore does not merit labeling. More importantly, Prop 37 is just a poorly-written proposition, written by and for regulation litigators (to whom it would create additional business) and organic grocery stores (who have an ideological axe to grind). It is opposed by scientists, farmers, food companies and the majority of California newspapers.