This is Why I'm Optimistic About Biotechnology

Developments like these are where the future of food biotechnology lies (HT: Tyler Cowen):

Researchers have developed a genetically modified tomato that produces a certain peptide which will lower the plaque buildup in the arteries of mice. This could also work in humans.

and

With 2.2% of the rodent’s diet comprised of the GM tomato, the researchers found that the mice had lower levels of blood inflammation, higher activity of the anti-oxidant enzyme paraoxonase, boosted levels of high density lipoproteins, decreased lysophosphatidic acid and less atherosclerotic plaque.

It's hard to know whether something like this could be commercially viable (or even work in humans), but I suspect that there were more developments like these, GMOs would lose the bad rap.

Prop 37 Defeated

I've written a lot on this blog and elsewhere about Prop 37, which would have required mandatory labeling of GM foods in California. 

According to the California election web site, it appears that with 98.5% of precincts reporting, Prop 37 was defeated 53% to 47%. 

As I discussed earlier, there had  been a strong downward trend in support over the past month, but I must say that I am surprised that the proposition failed to pass.  

No doubt proponents of mandatory labeling will decry the money spent by Monsanto, Dow, etc.  And there is little doubt that this money, and the ads it created, turned the tides.  Is this good or bad?  Apparently people were susceptible to the message in the "No" ads and  people voluntarily changed their mind: as it is often said "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."  The counter-argument will be that the ads were deceptive.  But it's hard to argue this point because the arguments made on the yes and no sides were both based on conjectures, extrapolations, and assumptions.  I personally thought there were more misleading claims made by the "yes" side than the "no."

At the end of the day, real, thinking people placed real votes that defeated the proposition.  We can't on the one hand say that these people were unreasonably influenced to  vote against Prop 37 while saying they were reasonably influenced to vote for Obama.  If one wants to fault the money of corporations, they also have to fault the people who change their minds as a result.  I'm not willing to go that far.

In any event, the good news for those who wanted Prop 37 is that there are lots of organic and GM-free products already for sell on the market, which are voluntarily labeled.   Prop 37 supporters didn't get what they wanted in the voting booth, but they can get it at the grocery store.  

Trust Science - Unless You Can't Trust Science, Say Scientists

That’s the title of an article that appeared in Science 2.0.  The article points out that “anti-science” attitudes are a bipartisan issue.  Biotechnology is emerging for the left what climate change has been for the right. 

Here are a couple of key paragraphs:

AAAS was likely also considering something only Science 2.0 had considered during the last presidential election, since the tale spun by science media during the Bush administration days was that Republicans took some sort of blood oath against science while Democrats were born being rational and super-smart and science-y, even if they were poetry majors; you can't expect people to trust the science consensus on global warming if you tell them to deny the science consensus on biology. It's as simple as that. Doing so just makes science look like an opinion.

Every American left-wing activism group tells its members that science is on their side when it comes to global warming but scientists are out to kill us when it comes to food and energy. From the Union of Concerned Scientists to Greenpeace to Sierra Club, they are all tripping over each other to declare that 'the science is not settled' on those things. The reason is because they are not in the science business, they are in the fundraising business and they are competing for the same demographic that is both scared of biology and inclined to believe global warming caused a hurricane.

Who Will Cover the Costs of California's Prop 37?

Friday Forbes.com published an article written by Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes and me.  Here  are a couple key paragraphs:

Lower income households across the United States spend a larger portion of their income on food than higher income households.  Lower income households also spend most of these dollars for food at home. High income individuals spend more at restaurants and eateries.  Similar trends exist for older relative to younger consumers.

And

Proposition 37 calls for mandatory GMO labeling of foods bought at the grocery store and consumed at home, but does not require the same for foods consumed in restaurants, cafeterias, catering, schools, and the like.  It also excludes all organic foods from mandatory GMO labeling irrespective of where they are consumed and of their GMO content.

Given these rules and exclusions, younger and more affluent consumers who spend more on organics and on food away from home would be less affected by Proposition 37. Poorer and older consumers could instead be called to foot the bulk of the bill implied by the Proposition while spending a larger portion of their limited income in doing so.

David Zilberman at UC Berkeley put out a blog post the same day covering some of the same themes.

Support for Prop 37 Dips Below 50%

According to the results of the latest poll by the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University, support for the GMO mandatory labeling dipped below 50% for the first time.

This graph from their consecutive polls is remarkable:

I'm not sure I've ever seen so dramatic a change in support for an issue in so short a period of time.  

I should note that the high level of support we found in our study conducted in late September is not inconsistent with the above polls once undecideds are factored in.  

My understanding is that a new wave of "YES 37" commercials has hit the airwaves in recent days.  Hard to know what effect they'll have but our research suggested that positive ads were not nearly as effective as negative.    

It will be interesting to see how it turns out on November 6.  I am frankly shocked it is so close.