“I only eat things that are natural.”
“This color doesn’t occur in nature.”
These are common arguments for why people should eat produce grown and labeled as “non-GMO” or “organic.” While there is certainly room in the market for these forms of agriculture, we should be careful about believing they are curative panaceas for everything from heart disease to climate change.
There are many myths and misconceptions around these labels, some of which motivate the battles we fight in the legislature about how farmers produce food and what consumers eat.
Non-GMO
A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a living organism that has had a single gene in its genetic code changed and inserted into a single cell to alter the organism. For example, the genetic alteration of crops can provide resistance to pests and disease, reducing the use of pesticides and harm to beneficial bugs. Other genetic alterations made some produce resistant to browning after being cut – reducing food waste. In every case, the benefit of modifying a crop has been to reduce or eliminate environmental damage, harm to beneficial bugs, reduce waste or energy use, or make crops more resistant to weather risk. In the United States, there are just 11 GM crops approved for sale.
Selective breeding
When people think of breeding, they often think of animals, but plants have been bred for centuries. Wild mustard is the “parent plant” for modern cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli. Wild nightshade is what modern tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes, and tobacco are derived from. Through thousands of years of “breeding” plants for selectively better traits – flavor, size, color, heartiness, length of time to maturity – the foods we consume today are very different from those planted even 50 years ago. Almost every food on the market has been selectively bred to be more appetizing than its parentage.
There is nothing inherently bad about a GMO or selectively bred fruit or vegetable. In fact, in the case of genetically modified produce, there is no way to tell if an item has been altered simply by looking at it or by tasting it. Selectively bred produce, when compared to previous generations of “parent” produce, can sometimes be distinguishable by taste, texture, color, or scent. A prime example of this differentiation can be found in bananas. Particularly the artificial banana flavoring, most often found in candies that many people find unpleasant. Artificial banana flavoring is based off of how bananas tasted in the early 1900s rather than how modern bananas taste, making it unappealing to the taste buds of some people now.
Campaigns like the Non-GMO Project will, for a fee, “verify” that an applicant has no genetically modified ingredients in their products and renew that verification annually for an additional fee. The trouble with groups like the Non-GMO Project is they also rely on consumers’ fear.
For some consumers, it may be the unconscious fear of “modified genetics.” For others, it is the fear of perceived interference from the shadowy, non-face of “big ag” invading their kitchens. These fears are compounded by the echo chambers of social media and “wellness gurus” seemingly confirming their greatest worries.
It is also a fear fostered by labels being put on products where they don’t belong. For example, the project’s website allows consumer’s look up products verified as “non-GMO” or containing no GMO ingredients. One such verification includes items like carrots, fennel, watercress, cilantro, celery, and spinach. None of these items have GMO versions available or approved for sale in the United States. So, while they do not have any GMO ingredients according to the “technical administrators” at the Non-GMO Project, they also aren’t GMO plants regardless of whether there is a label from the group.
In addition to capitalizing on consumers’ fear of GMO foods, the non-GMO food movement dips into their wallets as well. A 2015 study of the typical American grocery bill noted that conscious choices to purchase non-GMO labeled foods cost 73 percent more than simply buying whatever foods were available. A shift to a non-GMO focused food system would have a significant effect on low- and middle-income households, raising the overall cost of groceries 8 to 50 percent depending upon the eating habits of the household.
As we look toward future food production questions, practicality and science need to be part of the decision-making process. On a practical scale, not every household can seek out non-GMO labeled foods given their cost differential nor can those households hope to grow their own food. Similarly, science has shown both GM processes and selective breeding processes have improved our food supply, rather than caused it harm. Embracing technological and evolutionary changes that offer pest and disease resistant crops that produce better tasting food is to the betterment of us all.
So, remember to eat one of the most famous plants that doesn’t occur in nature. Broccoli is good for you.
Pam Lewison is the Director of Agriculture Research at the Washington Policy Center and a Pacific Research Institute fellow. She co-owns and operates a family farm in Eastern Washington state.
