GMOs: After the Elections

The 2014 midterm elections have come and gone, and in at least three states voters have weighed in with their thoughts on genetically modified foodstuffs. In Oregon and Colorado, voters rejected referendums that would have required foods sold in grocery stores that are made with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such.

In Oregon, the “no’s” eked out a victory, while in Colorado, opponents of that state’s proposal won out by a better than 2-to-1 margin.

In Hawaii, voters in Maui County considered a different proposal. There, voters narrowly passed a resolution that would, at least temporarily, ban the growing of genetically engineered crops within the county limits.

The campaigns leading up to the votes were revealing, because they demonstrated not only how contentious the issue of GMOs is but also how far companies and organizations are willing to go to fight against—and for—any restrictions on the use of GMOs. Millions of dollars were spent in each state to build the case against labeling or, in Hawaii’s case, against restrictions on growing genetically modified plants.

According to The Oregonian, more than $20 million was spent by opponents of Proposition 92, while supporters of the referendum spent nearly $7 million. Published reports out of Colorado estimated the expenditures of companies opposing Proposition 105 at $15 million. And Honolulu Civil Beat’s website stated that companies fighting the crop ban spent almost $8 million, “making it the most expensive campaign in Hawaii’s history.”

Hawaii is actually one of the few states to have taken a stand against GMOs. Only one other state, Vermont, has passed unfettered legislation requiring foods made using GMOs to be labeled as such. California and Washington’s attempts over the past couple of years to require labeling failed.

Vermont’s legislation already has been challenged in court, and we can expect to see action against Maui County’s measure. Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences are two companies whose farming operations will have to cease under the terms of the county’s action.

In the aftermath of the elections comes this news out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture: A potato that has been developed by the J.R. Simplot Co. to resist bruising has been approved for commercial planting.

According to Simplot’s website, the Innate potato, as it has been branded, has been modified by suppressing certain genes in the plant’s DNA to achieve specific results. The technology “makes it possible to enhance a potato plant’s desirable traits without introducing foreign genes into the plant,” the site states. “Innate potatoes are less susceptible to black spot from bruising caused by impact and pressure during harvest and storage than conventional potatoes, and have lower levels of asparagine and sugars.”

The reduced asparagine is important because this chemical creates acrylamide when the potato is fried. Acrylamide is a suspected carcinogen, and the Innate potatoes produce 40% lower levels of this agent, according to company research. Thus, the gene suppression could make the potato valuable from both a health standpoint and a financial perspective.

The technology also differs from that used by Monsanto and others to create “RoundUp-Ready” corn and soybeans, among other plants. In these cases, genes that resist the effects of herbicides and/or pesticides are added to the corn or soy DNA so that weeds and insects can be killed more effectively without harming the crop.

Opponents of such technology argue that it only promotes the use of higher and higher levels of pesticides, adding that they don’t believe there have been sufficient studies to prove that the modified corn or soy are safe for human or animal consumption.

So, how will Simplot’s achievement be viewed by the public? On the surface, it would appear to be completely different from what scientists have done with corn and soy. But some groups, such as the Center for Food Safety, already have expressed concerns, saying that gene silencing might create its own set of problems down the road.

Layman that I am, I am willing to accept that there can be good and bad genetic engineering. To paint all such technology with the same brush is unfair to the scientific community, but that is exactly what I fear Simplot will be up against as it goes to market with Innate. The onus will be on the company to prove the safety of its product, and that is going to take time.

On behalf of the staff of FoodService Director and our CSP Business Media family, I’d like to wish you all a joyous holiday season. May 2015 bring you good fortune and new innovations.