An Unusual Proposal

A reader who read my WSJ editorial on GMO labeling emailed me the following proposal.  

“The arguments in support of mandatory labeling largely fall in the “consumers have a right to know what’s in their food” category, which in theory is hard to argue with. On the flip side, there are no proven scientific based concerns regarding GMOs in the foods we eat and this is the basis (in general) for the position for those who oppose mandatory labeling of GMOs. Therefore, the solution seems very simple: make labeling of non-GMOs mandatory. If those in support of mandatory GMO labeling truly are interested in transparency, then mandatory labeling of non-GMOs provides the same amount of transparency (if you’re only going to mandate labeling for one side of the argument, why not the non-GMO side?). In addition, this should ease the concern of those who fear that mandatory labeling of GMOs will scare the public into thinking they are unsafe. Another great aspect of this solution is the cost to implement is almost zero because the food industry, in general, already labels non-GMO products. ”

Can I get that with an extra GMO?

That's the title the editors of the Wall Street Journal gave to my piece that was published today.  I touched on the issue of GMO labeling, but also tried to elevate the discussion a bit to delve into the broader issues at play.  

Here are a few snippets:

“Lost in the politics is a deeper debate about the future of our food system. At the core of many anti-GMO arguments lies a romantic traditionalism, a desire for food that is purportedly more in line with nature. Perhaps we should eat only the food that God gave us. Yet manna rarely falls from heaven.

The truth is that what we eat today differs radically from the food eaten even a few hundred years ago. Carrots used to be purple. Random mutations and selective breeding led to their signature color during the 16th century in the Netherlands, where it later was claimed the new varieties honored the King William of Orange. Broccoli, kale, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts all emerged from the same wild plant. Potatoes and tomatoes originated in the Americas and were never eaten in Europe and Asia until after the New World was discovered. Today we eat more and better than ever, precisely because we did not accept only what nature provided.”

and, in conclusion, after discussing the host of new biotech innovations coming to market:

“Food manufactures today may be reluctant to label foods made using biotechnology. But one day soon, when the fad against GMOs fades, they might be clamoring to add the tag: proudly produced with genetic engineering.”

Growing Flintstones

That's the title of Chapter 5 of Unnaturally Delicious, which discusses a variety of efforts to combat malnutrition in the developing world by breeding crops with higher vitamin and mineral content.  

“Providing vitamin supplements (think Flintstones Vitamins on a global scale) has indeed produced positive outcomes in many parts of the world. The approach, however, has proved less beneficial than the optimists had predicted. Vitamin supplements present a number of challenges. First, you’ve got to deliver them to where they’re needed—some of the most remote, unpaved, undeveloped places in the world. Then you’ve got to convince people to take them. Regularly. Then you’ve got to do it all over again. Every year. In perpetuity. Supplements are a one-off, partial solution to an ongoing problem. . . .

A more innovative, bottom-up approach is starting to challenge this top-down approach to ending malnutrition. One of the root causes of malnutrition is lack of dietary diversity, caused by both a lack of access and the inability to afford different foodstuffs. . . .

In this conundrum may lie a solution. If the staple crops of these farm families were more nutrient dense, some of the problems of malnutrition could be solved. Biofortification is the science of breeding crops to increase nutritional content.”

I talk about the organization Harvest Plus, and about one of my former students Abdul Naico who's back home in Mozambique working to increase adoption of sweet potatoes that are higher in beta carotene.  Here are a couple pictures he sent me.

While the efforts of Harvest Plus and other organizations have utilized conventional breeding techniques to create, for example, "high iron beans" in Rwanda, others have used biotechnology.  The most famous example is the work of Ingo Potrykus, who graciously answered some questions for me about golden rice, which contains a daffodil gene so that the rice produces beta carotene (which the body converts to vitamin A).  

“The initial varieties of rice createdby Potrykus and colleagues expressed only a small amount of vitamin A. Further iterations of golden rice have resulted in a twenty-threefold increase in the carotene content. Current varieties can produce 55 to 77 percent of recommend daily intake of vitamin A by eating a mere hundred grams of uncooked rice (or about half a cupful), and human research has found it safe and as effective as vitamin A supplements”

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board shared the following photos with  me.

Synthetic biology

This is the third installment in my effort to share some photos associated Unnaturally Delicious (by the way, I noticed today that the book was reviewed by Nadia Berenstein for Popular Science).

In the fourth chapter, I talk about synthetic biology.

“If yeast can convert sugar to alcohol, what else can it do? As it turns out, yeast is more than just an alcohol factory. Yeasts can eat up sugars to make flavors, fats, and fuels. And more. Yeast can make whatever its instructions tell it to make. By instructions, I mean the yeast’s genetic code, or DNA.”

When people think about biotechnology and "GMOs" they tend to think about big chemical and pharmaceutical companies, but as I reveal, even teenagers and young adults are getting in on the action.  

“Some of the most exciting developments in food bioengineering aren’t even among the Silicon Valley–like start-ups. They’re being conceived by kids who haven’t even finished high school or college. For more than a decade students around the globe have been assembling for an annual competition once hosted by MIT but now put on by the nonprofit International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Foundation. iGEM has become the premier competition in synthetic biology for graduate, undergraduate, and high school students”

I talked to a team from the City University of Hong Kong who made a pro-biotic to fight obesity (the modified bacteria "eats" undesirable fat and turns it into more desirable omega 3 fatty acid).  I also talked to the prize winning team from UC Davis who created a bacteria to test for rancid olive oil.  

“According to Ritz, as much as 70 percent of the olive oil imported into the United States is rancid by the time it reaches the consumer. Rancid oil has gone stale. It isn’t necessarily harmful or even bad tasting to the average consumer. In fact, the UC Davis team conducted some blind tastes with consumers and found that many people actually preferred the rancid oil to fresh oil—perhaps because it is what they have become so accustomed to eating. Ritz said that fresh olive oil creates a tingling feeling in the throat—a phenomenon unfamiliar to many American consumers. Being habituated to blander, stale oil has its costs. Rancid oil does not have the same healthy compounds—like antioxidants—that are associated with fresh olive oil.”

Here are some photos of that taste test and the entire UC Davis team.  

NYT Editorial on My Food Policy Study

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an editorial on the political fight over GMO labeling.  In the piece, the editorial board cited one of my studies (with Marco Costanigro) in the following passage:

“There is no harm in providing consumers more information about their food. A study published in the journal Food Policy in 2014 found that labels about genetic modification did not influence what people thought about those foods.”

I want to add a clarification and caveat to that statement.   What we found (in the context of an internet survey), is that the addition of GMO labels didn't make people more concerned about GMOs than they already were.  That is, the addition of a label didn't seem to send a signal that GMOs were more risky than consumers already thought they were.  

However, we did find that consumers would attempt to avoid foods with a GMO label.  Consumers' choices in our studied implied they were willing to pay as much $1.98/lb to avoid an apple that has a mandatory "genetically engineered" label relative to an unlabeled apple.  As I discussed just yesterday, it is precisely this issue that is the big potential driver of the costs of mandatory labeling.  That is, if some segment of consumers tries to avoid GMO labels, retailers and food manufacturers may respond by trying to source more costly non-GMO crops.    

Finally, I'll note that despite the above quote, that different types of GE labels in fact had very big effects on what people "thought" or were willing to pay for GE foods.  In particular, we compared how willingness-to-pay (WTP) for an unlabeled apple varied when there were apples with mandatory labels (i.e., "genetically engineered) vs.  voluntary labels (i.e., "not genetically engineered").

We found that the WTP premium for the unlabeled apple relative to the apple labeled "genetically engineered" was the aforementioned $1.98/lb.  However, the WTP premium for apples labeled "not genetically engineered" relative to the unlabeled apple was only $0.81/lb.  Thus, the implied willingness-to-pay to avoid GE was [(1.98–0.81)/0.81] ∗ 100 = 144% higher in the mandatory labeling treatment as compared to the voluntary labeling treatment.  In the paper, we write:

“The differences in responses to mandatory vs. voluntary labels may result from the asymmetric negativity effect, which may in turn result from differences in what these two labels signal about the relative desirability of the unlabeled product. The differences in the “contains” vs. “does not contain” may also send different signals and change beliefs about the likelihood that the unlabeled product is GE or non-GE.”

One more point that I just can't led slide.  The editorial also mentions the following:

“Various polls have found that about 90 percent of Americans favor mandatory labels for genetically modified foods.”

Yes, but about the same percentage of consumers say they want mandatory labels on foods with DNA.  And, when you directly ask people, the vast majority say they don't want the issue decided by state ballot initiatives but rather by the FDA.  And, we've had real-life ballot initiatives in five states now, and all have failed to garner more than 50% support.  Whatever positive reasons may exist for mandatory labeling, the cited "90% of people want it" reason is the most dubious and misleading.