Vitamins made by GMOs?

At NPR's blog The Salt, Dan Charles has some interesting discussion on the change in the nutritional profile for Cheerios after they went "non-GMO." 

“Remember when Cheerios and Grape-Nuts went GMO-free? That was about a year ago, when their corporate creators announced that these products would no longer contain ingredients made from genetically modified organisms like common types of corn, soybeans or sugar beets.

When they actually arrived on supermarket shelves, though, there was a mysterious change in their list of ingredients. Four vitamins that previously had been added to Grape-Nuts — vitamins A, D, B-12 and B-2 (also known as riboflavin) — were gone. Riboflavin vanished from Cheerios.”

Charles speculates on what caused the change.  One possibility is that some vitamins these days are apparently produced with genetically modified bacteria and yeast.  These microbes can reproduce quickly, and as a result they can efficiently produce vitamin B-12 or riboflavin, if they've got the right genes.  It's a fascinating process that holds much promise in other applications as well.   

Charles ends with what may be an interesting irony for companies who go GMO and maintain the same vitamin content:

“That leaves one method of vitamin production that’s cheap, industrial-scale, and reliably non-GMO: synthetic chemistry. Vitamins are commonly manufactured from scratch in chemical factories, using ingredients that cannot be linked to any genes or biological process at all. That technology may not inspire great affection, but it does, at least, qualify as non-GMO.”

Effects of Plant Variety Protection

New varieties of "self pollinated" crops have, in the past, been released by the public sector.  Self pollinated crops refer to those where farmers can save the seed after harvest, replant next year, and expect to have a new crop that is the same as the previous year (i.e., the "kids" are the same as the "parents").  Wheat is a staple crop that his both "self pollinated" and "inbred."

A lot of the research on wheat breeding has occurred in the public sector because of the belief that it would be difficult for private companies to recoup their investments when farmers can save their seed.  As a result, it is thought that private investment in wheat breeding would be "sub optimal" from a social welfare standpoint.

However, in recent years, a variety of changes have led to public and private companies being able to license new varieties and capture some of the benefits of the improvements in genetics.  Most controversial is the specter of GMO wheat, in which new varieties may have genes protected by intellectual property laws.  Unsurprisingly, some farmers and industry organizations don't like variety protection because it raises the cost of seed.  A cost that was previously borne by all taxpayers is now borne by the smaller group of farmers, millers, and bread consumers.  

A new paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics by Russell Thomson studies the effect of the introduction of new plant variety protection laws in Australia that allowed breeders to capture royalties on their new varieties. Thomson argues that the protection laws in Australia are "stronger" than in the US - giving breeders greater potential returns to their investments.

I have to admit that the findings are not what I would have expected.  Thomson writes: 

“The results indicate that varieties released by royalty-funded breeders are less valuable than those released by breeders operating under the alternative, prereform regime. The data provide no evidence that the transition to royalty-funded breeding is associated with an increase in the rate of variety release. Taken together, these findings suggest that the reform led to a fall in breeder output relative to what would have otherwise been the case. This statistical analysis is supplemented with a series of semistructured interviews with senior scientists, who were employed at Australian breeding programs over the period of reform. This qualitative evidence suggests that the fall in breeder output was caused by a combination of fewer research spillovers, lower release standards, and a possible fall in total investment in breeding. Analysis presented in this article suggests that plant variety protection alone does not ensure socially optimal breeding outcomes in the case of open-pollinated varieties.”

It is a little unclear whether this paper (which compares outcomes before and after a reform) is picking up the effect of the change in the law or some other secular trend.  Could it be the case that breeder output was falling everywhere even outside Australia (perhaps all the low hanging fruit had already been picked)?  The paper also doesn't tell us much (beyond anecdote) about whether total investment (public and private) in wheat breeding was steady or falling in real terms over this time period.  We also aren't told whether there were changes in how breeders who remained in the public sector were compensated after the law change.  Nonetheless, this is an interesting paper that should provoke more research in the area.  

Is McDonald's Pro-Cancer?

Earlier this month, the USDA approved a new GMO potato produced by the Idaho-based company Simplot.

Unlike the herbicide, insect, or virus resistant varieties today on the market, this GMO offers two tangible consumer benefits: the potatoes are less susceptible to bruising (and thus are more visually appealing and are likely to cut down on food waste) and perhaps more importantly, produces 50 to 75% less acrylamide when fried (acrylamide is a chemical suspected of causing cancer).  

I've found discussion of this story interesting for at least two reasons.  First, it isn't all that clear that this product should fall under the "GMO" umbrella.  Genes from other species are not introduced into the potato, but rather my understanding is that the new traits are created by deactivating genes already present in the potato.  In any event, it just goes to show that a GMO isn't a single thing; it is many, many possible things.  And, it points to the dander of making blanket statements like "GMOs are harmful" or "GMOs are safe".  One has to look at each GMO in question and see what the science says about that particular modification, and to the extent one thinks a harm is involved, articulate how the modification in question causes the particular harm claimed.  

Second, news sources have suggested that McDonald's has no plans to adopt the potato, which many anti-GMO activists have interpreted as indicating that McDonald's has rejected the potato and won't use it.  However, as Val Giddings points out in a post at the Innovation Files, such interpretations may be misplaced.   He writes:

“given that it would take Simplot at least several years to build seed stocks up to where they could even contemplate meeting an order from McDonald’s, who on earth would expect McDonald’s to say anything different?

This “story” of rejection is both completely manufactured and entirely unsurprising. Let’s see what McDonald’s says when they actually have a realistic opportunity to buy the potato. For anybody who thinks they will not avail themselves of a chance to improve their margins with less waste, and gain potential health claims as well, here’s a public service announcement – stay clear of the tables in Vegas.”

That brings me to the title of this post: Is McDonald's pro-cancer?.  These sorts of consumer oriented biotechnology innovations are a potential game changer because they shift the terms of the debate.  What possible reason could McDonald's give for continuing to use a potato known to have higher cancer risk?  Some vague, scientifically unsupported concerns voiced by a small (but vocal) set of activists against GMOs?  My hunch is that this is a PR battle that biotech may finally win.      

Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public?

That's the title of a paper I just published in the Biotechnology Journal with Brandon McFadden and Brad Rickard.  

Based on a survey of over 1,000 US consumers, we sought to determine which types of foods or biotechnology applications might be most acceptable.  

Respondents were asked, on a 7-point scale, to indicate how desirable (i.e., 1 = very undesirable to 7 = very desirable) it would be to eat six foods strategically selected to vary by product type (i.e., apple, corn, and beef) and degree of processing (i.e., fresh and processed): apples, apple juice, corn on the cob, corn chips, beef steak, and beef hotdog. The question was then repeated except each food was identified as being GE: genetically engineered apple, apple juice made from genetically engineered apples, etc. Of interest is the change in the desirability of each food product as it moves from a GE to a non-GE form, and whether the change in desirability systematically relates to product type and degree or processing. 

Here's what we found.

We write:

“ when foods were not GE, fresh was preferred over processed and beef products were preferred over corn and apple products. . . . [W]hen products were GE, respondents continued to prefer fresh to processed (although not nearly as much as when non-GE), but now respondents prefer corn and apples to beef, indicating a preference reversal. . . . The results indicate that adding “GE” causes a larger drop in desirability for fresh than processed food and also caused a larger drop in the desirability of meat relative to corn and apples. Thus, not only does GE change the overall desirability . . . , it changes the relative ranking of products, with larger penalties associated with being GE assigned to fresh food and meat.”

We also asked consumers how desirable or undesirable different reasons for genetic modification were.  All the reasons had a mean score above 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7), meaning they were more desirable than not.  Here the results for each issue.

How effective is education at correcting misperceptions

Whether its GMOs or pesticides or economic effects of various food policies, it seems that the public often holds beliefs that are at odds with what the experts believe.  A natural tendency - especially for someone who is an educator - it to propose that we need more education on these topics.

But, how effective are we at changing people's minds?  This article in Pacific Standard by the psychologist David Dunning might give us pause.  

The research suggests:

“What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.”

But, before you start feeling too confident in your own abilities, read the following:

“An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by-product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often, our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to an age when we can procreate. But our genius for creative storytelling, combined with our inability to detect our own ignorance, can sometimes lead to situations that are embarrassing, unfortunate, or downright dangerous—especially in a technologically advanced, complex democratic society that occasionally invests mistaken popular beliefs with immense destructive power (See: crisis, financial; war, Iraq). As the humorist Josh Billings once put it, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” (Ironically, one thing many people “know” about this quote is that it was first uttered by Mark Twain or Will Rogers—which just ain’t so.)”

Several studies seem to suggest that providing people with a little information may not lead to more agreement on an issue, but rather can result in polarizing opinions. The reason is that information makes use feel more informed, and lets us feel more confident in whatever our political or cultural tendencies would lead us to believe in the first place.  That is, people bend information to reinforce their identity and cultural beliefs.