Right to Know

I spent a lot of time stressing out over this past election. I donated to Obama (and to some of the senate races) a few times. I hadn't given much thought to the ballot propositions across the nation, though.

One such measure in California was Right to Know. The measure would have required labeling all genetically modified foods as such. It lost by a few percent (90% of people supported labeling GMOs, but the food industry spent millions of dollars against the measure, which seems to have changed public opinion). I'm surprised by the opposition to this measure since it seems like a fairly straightforward measure that would cost nothing and give consumers more information about the products that are going into their bodies (though I have also seen some very reasonable criticisms of the proposition's wording). As a result, I thought that I would write my thoughts on the issue.

I'm a computer scientist, so I believe that technological progress can make the world a better place. I studied biocomputation, which means that I think that one specific way that technology can do cool stuff is by looking at, and perhaps changing, genes. I think that genetic engineering has an amazing potential. Because of, not despite, that, I think that GMO foods should be labeled.

Summary
Labeling GMOs would help science because it would let GMO supporters buy GMOs, it would get more people interested in GMOs, and it would ease people's fears about GMOs by normalizing them. Also, a better discourse about GMOs, including regulations about cross contamination of GMOs would help preserve genetic information that is used in genetic research.

Labelling GMOs is necessary for human dignity because people have the right to know what they're putting in their body. This is especially true with regard to religious dietary restrictions and families that want to be safe.

GMO crops are often bad for farmers because they are optimized for greenhouses with lots of water and fertilizer and no extreme weather, whereas much of the world (especially with climate change) has to deal with extreme weather, not enough water, and not enough money for fertilizer.

GMO crops are bad for agriculture and food security because they are a monoculture.

GMO crops are bad with regard to intellectual property because people shouldn't be able to patent life and because farmers should have the right to grow their own seeds.

GMO crops are risky with regard to health because they haven't been shown to be safe, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization want increased testing, and some studies have shown that GMO foods are unsafe.

For Science!
One argument that I have heard against labeling GMOs is that if GMOs were labeled, fewer people would buy them, so the science of genetic engineering would be hurt.

Science is about increasing human knowledge. It seems contradictory to say that we need to keep science a secret. Indeed, if someone is a big supporter of GMOs, then they should be able to know what products are genetically modified so that they can buy them and put their money where their mouth is!

Also, people become interested in science when they hear about it. I have no doubt that the food industry is capable of convincing people that their genetically modified foods are better than non modified foods. I can imagine a cereal box with "Genetically Enhanced!" in big letters on the front as part of an advertising campaign -- though, to be clear, they only have to label their foods as GMO, which would probably happen on the nutritional label that all foods already have. I can imagine a kid who is interested in science reading a nutritional label, doing research, and discovering that they want to be a genetic researcher.

Science also benefits from reasonable regulations. In parts of the world where there aren't strict (or enforced) laws about labeling pharmaceuticals, people don't have faith in their medicine because it might be counterfeit or, even if it's genuine, it might be snake oil. In the US, we have standards on pharmaceuticals -- they have to list their side effects, they have to report their active ingredients (I think), they have to accurately represent what diseases they treat, etc. As a result, people don't generally worry about their medicine killing them, even though it does happen, so we have a ton of medical research scientists, and lots of people who feel safe about pharmaceuticals.

90% of people originally supported GMO labeling, and 47% still supported it even after Monsanto's (and other companies') ads. That indicates to me that a lot of people don't feel completely secure about GMOs. People still think of GMOs as frankenfoods and think of "natural" foods as better (whatever that means). If we had standards on what a GMO food had to do to be considered safe and to be put on the market, people would start feeling more secure in them, which would dispel myths about them. Right to Know doesn't add these regulations, but it does start the discussion, and it does increase knowledge about GMOs, which is a step in the right direction to people evaluating them scientifically and rationally.

One more significant long term scientific detriment that GMOs can cause is the removal of genetic information. If I design a GMO corn that can grow better (under certain conditions) than most other varieties of corn, then I might drive dozens of species of corn close to extinction. GMO crops are wiping out thousands (millions?) of years of genetic information that came about through research and through older methods of crop development (ie, taking the seeds of the best crop and growing those or cross fertilizing them with other good crops). Speaking as a bioinformaticist, I know that genes are very complicated. Most of the GMOs that we have now are the result of looking at existing genes and adding them to other species. If we keep wiping out alternate species for a given crop, then we are eliminating our primary method of genetic research. I think that we should prioritize long term genetic research over short term profits off of GMO cash crops.

For Human Dignity
Most of the arguments against labeling GMOs seem to follow the line of, "Fewer people will buy GMOs if they know that their food is GMO, but they're irrational." To me, that line of reasoning sounds incredibly antidemocratic. If lots of people don't want to buy GMO foods, then even if they are "irrational," they should be allowed to. It's their choice, not your choice. An individual gets to choose what they put in their body. That is a basic human right.

But let me outline some specific issues.

People have the right to observe their religion. Many religions have dietary guidelines. Jews and Muslims, for instance, have guidelines against pork, and Hindus have guidelines against against beef. If they, as part of their religion, don't want to eat that meat, that is their right. Many of these people don't know, for instance, that there are pork genes in some tomatoes. One member of my family keeps kosher, and when I told her about pork genes being in some tomatoes, she said that she would start avoiding tomatoes because she considers it a part of her religion. She should be able to eat non GMO tomatoes if she wants to, but there isn't labeling to distinguish them, so she can't.

People have the right to be cautious about their families' safety. The evidence is not all out on GMOs, and they might be perfectly safe. That does not mean that they're safe. If a parent wants to be overly health conscious with their kid, then they should be able to. I might think that it's silly for a parent to force their kid to wear knee pads, but they should have that option. Just because other people are more cautious than you doesn't mean that you should force your own opinions on them.

For Farmers
GMO crops are very good at what they do. As a engineer, I know that when you optimize one variable, it often comes at the expense of other variables. GMOs are no exception. Evolution works pretty well, and genetic engineering is still a very new science, so when we make a GMO, it's often fairly blunt. When Monsanto make a new species of corn, they are making it for their market. The biggest buyers are massive farms in the middle of America. The companies who run those farms probably benefit from the GMO seeds because it was designed for them.

Consider what that means, though. That species of corn works when it has little natural weather variation, when there is surplus water, when there is surplus nitrogen, when there is surplus light, when there are ubiquitous pesticides, and when there are expensive machines to help with the labor.

When we violate any of those conditions, the GMO crops fare worse. Last year, there were big winds, which caused a lot of American farmers a lot of stress. I believe that to be the result of overreliance on GMO crops. Corn that evolved in windy climates can handle wind. Corn that evolved in drought, or heavy rain, or in any other condition can handle that condition because evolution made sure that it could handle that.

Dr. Vandana Shiva (trained as a physicist) has done a lot of work on this in India. Monsanto has convinced small Indian farmers to use their seeds because they claim that it will increase their yields. This usually doesn't pan out. She says that farmers can now recognize Monsanto corn because whenever there's wind, it just blows over, whereas everyone else's corn can pretty much handle it. They also can't afford enough fertilizer or irrigation or greenhouse lights to provide the other conditions to make it grow well. Shiva also does activism regarding preserving genetic information.

I'm not saying that GMO crops are intrinsically worse for most of the farmers in the world. I'm just saying that the technology isn't good enough yet -- especially since it's being designed for a different user group. I'm a big fan of computers, but I wouldn't have recommended that someone buy a computer for themselves in 1980.

For Agriculture
One thing that is bad in general is monocultures. Some countries would devote their economies to growing bananas for export. These banana republics would do great for a while. Then, there would be a weather pattern that would negatively effect banana growth, a new disease would effect bananas, or the demand for bananas in another country would decrease, and the country's economy would tank. When you put all of your eggs in one basket, it's very risky.

A similar situation is happening with GMOs. The issues of weather patterns in India was only one small example of this. With global climate change, we're getting extreme weather everywhere, so that will increasingly be an issue.

But aside from that when all of our plants have the same DNA, then all it would take is one virus to wipe out a large portion of the world's food crop. We worry about North Korea developing nuclear weapons, but their nukes would be nowhere near as dangerous as if they could engineer a virus that would target Monsanto's corn, and it would probably cost less than what they're spending now. Computer scientists worry about information security. The genetic information of Monsanto's corn is homogenous and, as a result, is fairly insecure.

Also, GMOs often lead to higher pesticide use, which has some bad effects. For one thing, lots of farmers die every year from exposure to pesticides. I assume that was one reason why United Farm Workers supported Right to Know. Another bad thing is that it leads to super weeds. Plus, the pesticides runoff into water and create mutant fish. Not to mention the ones that we eat.

For Intellectual Property
I don't believe that it is moral to patent life. Monsanto has patented their seeds, the genetic building blocks of life. Ergo...

This has also caused a lot of problems. In one court case, a farmer didn't want to grow GMO food, but a nearby farmer's seeds contaminated their crop. Then, the farmer was sued for growing the GMO without paying royalties even though they never wanted to grow it.

Another issue is the right of farmers to be able to grow food. If the GMO seeds become more prevalent and wipe out natural crops, then farmers will lose the ability to grow crops for free. I think that farmers should have the autonomy to grow what they want.

For Health
Most people think that health is the only reason people have for supporting GMO labeling. I put this section last because health is the least significant reason for me. Lots of people eat GMO food, and we still have a decently long life expectancy, so the health effects are probably fairly minor. That said, many people who get serious health problems such as cancer or heart disease are willing to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars when that will probably only increase their life expectancy by a couple of years. My guess would be that GMO foods are somewhere at that level, but it costs a lot less than chemo or open heart surgery.

However, people are irrational, so I'll give some more context on what I mean when I say "minor." The risk of death from a terrorist attack is much less than the risk of death from getting hit by lightning or being eaten by a shark. Comparatively, GMOs probably kill a lot more people than terrorist attacks (at least for Americans). Driving is one of the leading causes of death in the US. When I say "minor," I mean that eating GMO food is much safer than driving to work.

Given that comparison, I try to be healthy. That means that if there's a habit that might give me an extra year of life expectancy, I'll try to take up that habit. When I put something in my body, I want evidence that it's safe. I wouldn't take an untested pharmaceutical. I wouldn't get a blood transfusion that might not be my blood type. Nor would I eat a random mushroom that could be poisonous. Similarly, I want evidence that GMOs are safe before I eat them, and there haven't been any long term studies showing that they're safe.

Snarky opponents to GMO labeling say that there haven't been any studies showing that GMOs are dangerous.

First, that argument is illogical. There weren't any long term studies that DDT or Agent Orange were unsafe. Indeed, the two companies that gave the most money against GMO labeling, the two companies that are arguing that GMOs are safe, also argued that DDT and Agent Orange were perfectly safe. But we now know that they aren't safe. When I can choose between two options, one of which is safe and one of which might be safe or might not be safe, I'll probably choose the one that I know is safe.

Second, that argument is untrue. There have been studies showing that GMOs are unsafe. Some studies have found increased liver and kidney toxicity in as few as 90 days. Others have shown allergic reactions. As a result, the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization recommend testing of GMO foods. In other words, the organizations that are experts on whether or not something is healthy are unconvinced that GMOs are healthy. To be clear, these groups don't think that GMOs are unhealthy -- they just think that it's risky and that it's better to be safe than sorry. The AMA favors mandatory testing for all GMO foods before they get approved instead of supporting labeling. I think that both ideas make sense.