By Tom Newmark, Drake Sadler, and Michael Besancon
(Editor’s Note: On
November 6, voters in California
will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, a
measure that would require manufacturers of foods and food products to label in
a transparent manner whether the food or food ingredients contain any
genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. More information is available here. This issue has
become quite contentious within the industries of natural food and organic food
supply and manufacturing, with various companies and organizations falling on
both sides of the issue. As with all guest
editorials, the views expressed by the authors of this article do not
necessarily reflect the views of the American Botanical Council, its staff, or
its Board of Trustees.)
Did you hear the recent story about the scientists
who wanted to put the phosphorescent genes from jellyfish into kittens? Sounds
crazy, but some cat owners whose felines stray at night would like to use this
technology to find them in the dark.
So imagine this laboratory setting: It is
night, with low candlelight and soft mood music, and a jellyfish is alone with a
cat. The cat is a little apprehensive, wondering how the jellyfish will make
its amorous move. It seems ridiculous, of course, and no matter how long those
clever scientists might wait, the jellyfish is never going to mate with the
cat. It would be, well, unnatural.
So these scientists did the unnatural thing. They
extracted the jellyfish’s phosphorescence DNA, and inserted them into the cat
genome, hoping the glow-in-the-dark trait would transfer. And it did — really! Look on the Internet and you’ll
find images of glowing yellow and green kittens, just like a bad science
fiction movie.
In certain applications, maybe genetic
engineering isn’t always bad science, and we acknowledge that the
glow-in-the-dark kittens were part of research to better understand feline
immunodeficiency virus (FIV). But let’s be clear: combining jellyfish and cat DNA
certainly isn’t the result of normal reproduction. It’s definitely not natural
and neither is the genetic engineering or modification of foods!
California’s Proposition 37 will require the labeling
of foods (processed and raw, natural or not) that contain genetically modified
or genetically engineered ingredients. It’s also known as the “Right to Know”
initiative, and it’s on the ballot in November 2012 because almost a million
California voters have signed petitions asking to vote on this issue.
Most polls show overwhelming state and national
support for the labeling of genetically modified foods, yet some provisions of
Prop. 37 have concerned other players within the natural products community. The Natural Products Association and the Council for Responsible
Nutrition, 2 leading natural product trade associations, say vote “No;” Whole
Foods Market and many leading organic brands say vote “Yes;” while some
influential organizations are sitting on the fence with no official position.
Understandably, some of the “Vote Yes” partisans are uncomfortable with certain
aspects of the proposition, principally the specter of private litigation similar
to that which resulted from the much-maligned and highly controversial
California Proposition 65.
But Prop. 37 and Prop. 65 are fundamentally
different. Prop. 65 is all about content.
If a product or ingredient contains one scintilla over the limit of any of
about 800 natural and synthetic chemicals, the seller of that material has Prop. 65 exposure. Prop. 37 on the other hand, is all about process. If a manufacturer can document through supply-chain
affidavits that it has not intentionally introduced genetically engineered
materials into the product, the manufacturer has no Prop. 37 legal exposure.
Also, under Prop. 37 the GMO content of an
“exempt” product is irrelevant. A processed food may have significant GMO
contamination (with no upper limits), but if the contamination is unintentional
and if efforts were made to segregate the product from GMOs, there will be no
Prop. 37 labeling requirement or exposure. There is pervasive misinformation on
this point, and it bears repeating: Prop. 37 is about process, in contrast to Prop. 65’s focus on content!
Responsible herb and dietary supplement companies
already operate in a complex process-driven industry complying with domestic
and international regulations, cGMP (current good manufacturing practices) requirements,
New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) notification requirements, organic certification,
and NonGMO Project verification. Certainly these companies can handle the paperwork
involved in having suppliers confirm that they’ve not intentionally introduced
GMOs into their materials.
For those manufacturers that currently use GMO
materials (for up to 10 minor ingredients), however, under Prop. 37 they have 5 years
to make the transition. And after this time, if they want to keep using GMO
materials, they can do so but will then be required to label their products.
And in fact, the labeling required will be
rather benign. It would simply read, “May be Partially Produced with Genetic
Engineering.” No scary language like, “This experimental genetically engineered
stuff hasn’t been clinically tested for safety,” no warnings of potential birth
defects or infertility, and no alarms about unknown food allergens or glow-in-the-dark
bran muffins. It’s just a “may be.”
Even so, some companies with quality products
will make mistakes, and supply-chain management will need to increase scrutiny.
It’s also fair to say that Prop. 37 will, like many statutes, benefit from
intelligent rulemaking and enforcement, and the herbal and dietary supplement community
will have opportunities to be heard as the details get fleshed out. These are
not sufficient reasons to withhold support for this important initiative.
Health-conscious consumers trust manufacturers
to tell the truth about their products. Consumers have the right to know what
they’re buying and Prop. 37 is a necessary first start.
Tom Newmark is the former Chairman of New Chapter Inc., owner of an
organic herb farm in Costa Rica, and has recently joined the Board of Trustees
of the American Botanical Council.
Drake Sadler is the co-founder and chairman of Traditional
Medicinals, Inc., the largest medicinal herb tea manufacturer in the United
States.
Michael Besancon is the
retired senior global vice-president of purchasing, communications, and distribution of Whole Foods Market.
|