Three Things I Learned When I Started Researching Proposition 37

Categories: Talking Points

477423727_cbf88e3c29_z_corn_flickr.jpg
Flickr/Dodo-Bird
Nearly 90% of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.
By now you've probably heard that a major food fight is going down on the state ballot on Tuesday. If passed, Proposition 37 would require a label on any genetically engineered foods and food products sold in California -- an unprecedented move that could end up shaping food policy on a national level. The fight over the proposition has turned into a David-and-Goliath story in the media, with Big Business on one side and The People on the other. But as much as I didn't trust the scary No on 37 ads running what seems like every five minutes on TV, I also didn't know if the folksy Yes on 37 message of grassroots transparency was really as simple as it seemed. I decided to get to the bottom of things.

See also:
- Four Barrel Nixes Soy. Forever.
- Planting GMO Crops = Butterfly Murder

It wasn't easy. It took about ten hours, all said and done, before I felt like I'd waded through the lies and half-truths and omissions of both the opposition (which has more than $40 million in donations from big agri-chemical companies like Monsanto) and support (which has comparatively little money, but the cache of being backed by Alice Waters and more than 1,000 chefs). I studied up on GMOs, read all the material I could find (including Michael Pollan's excellent editorial in The New York Times), and talked to several folks involved with the campaign or with food in general, including Pollan, small business owners at shops like Bi-Rite Grocery, a spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign, and policy people at places like the Center for Food Safety, which has been fighting for GMO labeling for years.

Here's what I learned during my research:

There is no scientific evidence that GM foods are harmful to human health, but their long-term effects also haven't been studied.

The World Health Organization has found no detrimental effects to human health in countries where GM foods have been approved, which is a major pillar of the No on 37 campaign and the main question scientists against the legislation have posed. Why arbitrarily start with GMO labeling, they ask, which haven't been proven harmful? The "No" campaign is backed by several scientists who echo claims like a June 2012 statement from the American Medical Association which states that "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods."

Supporters of the proposition point out that GMOs have only been around for 20 years, meaning that no long-term studies have been conducted on their effects -- partially because major agri-chemical companies like Monsanto own the patents to the seeds. There are also reasons beyond health to consider, like the impact on the environment (GMO crops have created pesticide-resistant "super-weeds"), plus worries about the influence of agri-chemical companies in the food supply, and religious objections about messing around with genetic material.

To food writing superstar and UC Berkeley journalism professor Michael Pollan, who has openly admitted that he's not convinced GM foods are dangerous, it's more a question of whether they're worth it. "The food industry has a product that offers the consumer nothing. It's no safer, no more nutritious ... no tastier, if it offers anything it's a measure of convenience to farmers," he says. "[The major companies are] asking people to eat something that offers them no benefit and some potential risk." (The original promise of GMO seed was that crops grown from it could resist pesticides.)

And as Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety, points out, we currently can't even track GM foods to see if they are causing harm. "Someone can have an allergic reaction, go to the doctor, list whats on the package [of the food they ate], but 'genetically engineered' isn't on the package so its not even something doctors can even consider," she says. "This is a way to track whether there are potential allergic reactions and adverse health effects."

Other countries that require GMO labeling, after the jump.

My Voice Nation Help
6 comments
savage.sd
savage.sd

Anna,

there are several erroneous things in your article but I'll just address one here.  You say that no GMO traits have value for you, the consumer.  That is simply not true.  There are two new GMO soybeans modified to have a high oleic acid profile much like olive oil that food companies will be able to use to avoid transfats.  Insect resistant corn has been shown to have less risk of mycotoxin contamination.  I'd sure prefer that for tortillas or chips.  Also, the drought tolerant lines can help keep food prices down in bad years like the last one.   Herbicide resistant crops make it easier for farmers to do "no-till farming" which is far better for the environment.

 

Biotech crops are just one of a host of technologies which makes farming easier, more productive, and less risky for the farmer.  You might not see that as good for you, but frankly you are dependent on this people to live, so that is good for them is certainly good for you.

 

 

 

raypedia
raypedia

A good beginning, but there's more to the discussion. The impact of GM crops on the eco-system should be part of the discussion. As should the fact that while labels are cheap, will people change buying practices if they see GMO on the label? If so, that will impact food costs... for the same reasons why organic food is more expensive.

GMKnow
GMKnow

Anna, the WHO also cites Codex Alimentarius as it's standards body for determining the maximum allowable level of chemicals in food. For example, did you know that Codex allows DDT to be in food in numerous countries? In fact, our USDA also cites Codex as its definitive source for establishing "acceptable levels of risk" for chemical contamination in food. My point is that using WHO as a barometer of appropriateness for safety, you should at least provide a rich enough context to make a very strong and effective point.

Karl Wilder
Karl Wilder

California....please lead the nation in voting for this wonderful law.

robert.wager
robert.wager

 @raypedia The 2010 National Academies of Science report "The Impact of GE Crops on Farm Sustainability in the US" clearly states GE crops have been beneficial to agriculture.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...