The State of California is famous for unusual ballot initiatives. This November voters will be asked to pronounce on a measure requiring food companies to label any product sold in the state with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
 
Farmers, grocers, the food industry and small business people are up in arms and busy raising money to try and defeat the measure. There is an equally vigorous but less well funded campaign from the other side encouraging the voters to require a label change.
 
In part, this mess has come about because the federal government has failed to act to clarify the labeling laws and in the vacuum activists across the country have thrown their weight behind an initiative in a populous and influential state. Of course, if the measure passes there will be de facto national labeling because few manufacturers will want the logistical and cost burden of a separate label for California.
 
Genetic engineering to enhance desirable traits in crops has been around for decades. I cannot think of a technology that has had as dramatically positive impact on people’s lives yet generates such bad press. In large measure I think this is because the benefits to the consumer have often been hidden or gone to other stakeholders such as farmers and multinational agribusinesses. But in the last 50 years yields of wheat have tripled; for rice, the staple of so many of the world’s truly poor, there has been a doubling of yield due to technologies that were deployed in the last half century. The massive increases in agricultural productivity have kept food prices down and helped billions of people who live in urban slums eke out a living.
 
But you would not know this if you read the publicity of the anti-GMO crowd advocating a “Yes” on Proposition 37. The websites are filled with misinformation and alarmist statements. For example, at www.carighttoknowfacts.org you’ll find: “There have been NO long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically engineered foods on humans.” Pretty alarming but it happens to be false.
For years the European Union (EU) has had a negative view of GMO technology in agriculture. To its credit, it has taken the time to research the scientific issues and in late 2010 issued a report titled “A decade of EU-funded GMO research.” This and an earlier report summarized the work of more than 500 independent research groups. The EU Commission concluded: “GMOs are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.”
 
It is perhaps understandable that activists would seek to denigrate a useful technology in a rich State like California. And, as I indicated before, I fully support the proposal to label foods that use GMO ingredients if such a standard was adopted nationally and there were clear testing protocols and levels set for contamination by minor food processing aids. But I object when these same people advocate for a ban on a technology that has already saved the lives of millions of children in developing countries and has the capacity to save the lives of billions more.
 
For some years now I have been on the Advisory Board of a great charity called Vitamin Angels (www.vitaminangels.org). It’s been providing life-saving doses of Vitamin A to children in developing countries for years and this year will serve more than 25 million children. Thirteen years ago scientists in Europe created a modified strain of rice that contains beta-carotene (a precursor of Vitamin A). The inventors were not interested in profit. They were prepared to license free of charge the strain to farmers in developing countries allowing them to plant, grow and sell a staple food that would have a profoundly beneficial effect on the lives of millions. But 13 years later the effort is still largely blocked. Because it is GMO, Golden Rice, as it has come to be known, has been banned in the EU and following the lead in many African countries. According to the developers of this technology more than 250,000 lives have been lost by the failure to go ahead with this. It is one thing to push a point of view and advocate for bans and labeling in California where many of us can choose from a wide range of foods, but to deny access to a life-saving technology to the millions of children in Africa and Asia who have too little to eat and a diet that is deficient in essential nutrients is immoral.
 
I expect Proposition 37 to pass and when it does the costs of re-labeling will be passed along to consumers. Some companies will reformulate and those costs too will be passed along. When the proponents of the measure reflect on their success I hope they spare a thought for the world’s impoverished and consider how the full ramifications of a lack of choice for someone going to bed hungry.

This is my last blog for Nutraceuticals World. Many thanks to the staff and especially to Becky Wright who juggles many responsibilities and is always cheerful and understanding. I am going to spend more time on charities and early next year am taking on the additional responsibility of the President of the Alumni Association of my undergraduate university.