An informed opinion on GMOs

I’ve been wanting to write an opinion about Genetically Modified Organisms for years. I was first asked to wade into the GMO opinion zone in 2012 when I blogged for the Hawaii Food & Wine Festival. However, the quagmire of misinformation made it difficult to sort out propaganda from science.

I wanted factual information, and it has taken me several years to gather enough that I feel I can have an informed opinion on the matter.

That opinion is that I am NOT opposed to GMOs.

Just because I am in favor of GMOs does not mean that I am against organic. Just as liking organic, should not necessarily make one anti-GMO. As a chef, my stance on food has always been based on quality of product. Just as I don’t always use local products for the sake of saying that I buy local, I don’t buy organic for the sake of saying that I use organic.

Just because something is certified organic doesn’t guarantee a superior product. If I’m buying local, it’s because the local product is of equal or better quality than an import. The same goes for food with the organic certification. I use local whenever possible, organic whenever possible, and yes, ideally, local organic whenever possible.

I buy Ma’o Organic produce because it is a great product grown by a socially conscious organization. The fact that it is organic really has no bearing on my choice.

The facts as I know it

No doubt, many will dismiss this as pro-GMO rhetoric, and that I’m a shill for Monsanto (the company many view as the evil empire of food) paid to spread their corporate lies. Full disclosure: The only thing that I have received from Monsanto is the cocoa puff and cup of tea they paid for the day I met with two of their executives at Liliha Bakery (more on that later). [Disclosure: since writing this I have attended an informal dinner hosted by Monsanto to meet with glyphosate expert Dr. William Reeves.]

I promise that everything I am about to share, as I know it, is based on facts.

Your organic produce is a GMO.

People forget that organic refers to the certified growing method. Yes, USDA standards prohibit the use of biotech seeds, however since humans first started cultivating crops, we have been manipulating the genes of plants and animals to instill desired traits.

Bigger pigs, brighter apples, sweeter citrus, artificially inseminated cows that produce more milk, more robust tomatoes – all created through genetic tinkering crop after crop, generation after generation, the ideal being bigger yields that require less manpower to produce.

The produce we buy is unrecognizable from the original from which they were derived. Everything modern farmers grow has been genetically modified in one way or another, through cross-pollination, grafting, selective breeding and so forth. Therefore, I will use the term “biotech crops” when referring to what many mislabel as GMO.

There’s no way for people to know where their produce is from or how it was cultivated. Therefore, I am in favor of labeling. Let the farmers grow what they choose to grow, and let the consumer decide what they choose to buy.

Dr. Robert Fraley and I discussing GMO facts at Liliha Bakery.

When I sat down with Dr. Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto, and John Purcell, Business Lead for Monsanto in Hawaii, I asked about the company’s stance on labeling.

Fraley said not only does Monsanto support labeling, they prefer it be regulated by the USDA.

“Labeling on the state level would make things more difficult for farmers,” explained Fraley, “…because the labeling standards in their state may be different than the regulations in another state, which could impede them from doing business there.”

As we sat in Liliha Bakery, Fraley pointed to the QR code on a bottle of ketchup. He said that if he had his way, labeling would use QR codes. Customers could scan the code with their smart phones and find out not only if the product contains biotech crops, but where the crop was grown, who grew it and even where the seed came from.

To test this, I scanned a QR code on a basket of grapes I recently bought, which directed me to a website called Harvest Mark. The information is rudimentary, consisting of the the company the grapes were from, and if there were any food safety issues reported. Definitely a step in the right direction, that could be expanded upon with guidance from the USDA.

Educating the public

John Percell giving a tour of the Monsanto Farm in Kunia. Photo by Kyle Shimoda

Purcell admits that they (Monsanto) haven’t done a very good job of educating the public.

“We were so focused on educating farmers on the benefits of biotech crops, that we forgot that they only make up 1.5% of the population,” said Purcell. “We have a lot of people to educate.”

Denise Yamaguchi, CEO of the Hawaii Food & Wine Festival and executive director for the Hawaii Agricultural Foundation, also wants to educate people about their food. Hawaii Ag Foundation supports all types of farming, and that farmers should be able to freely choose between conventional or organic farming as well as use of biotech seeds.

Yamaguchi described a Hawaii Ag Foundation program called In The Fields, which sponsors visits to local farms for high school students.

“We expose the students to different types of farming and then we leave it up to them to decide what they think,” says Yamaguchi.

The students visit three farms: conventional, organic and one that grows biotech crops.

Melissa Zeman, who manages the Ag Park in Kunia for the Hawaii Ag Foundation, explained the differences between conventional farming, organic and biotech.

“Conventional and organic farming are methods or styles of growing crops,” Zeman explains. “Biotech refers to a breeding technique used for seeds. Therefore, it is possible to organically grow a biotech crop, it just won’t be certified as organic.”

The main distinction between conventional and organic farming is in the pesticides and fertilizers. Organic uses naturally derived pesticides and fertilizers, whereas conventional farming uses synthetic chemicals. A common misconception is that organic doesn’t use pesticides; in reality, they sometimes use more than conventional farming because the naturally derived product may not be as effective at killing pests.

And while synthetic has specific, regulated, instructions on how much to use based on crop and size of the field, natural pesticides are not required to give such guidance, so organic produce may have more pesticide residue.

Zeman hopes Hawaii Ag Foundation programs like In The Fields, Veggie U Hawaii, and Ag internships, will not only lead to the next generation of farmers, but expose students to other careers that support agriculture like lab technicians, office workers and chefs.

GMOs in our lives

Yamaguchi put it best when she asked, “How much biotech is in the produce section of your local market?”

The answer is not much. In Hawaii the main biotech crop on the shelves would be papaya, which was genetically altered to resist the ring spot virus that virtually wiped out the industry until transgenic papaya varieties were introduced in 1998.

Most of the two major biotech crops, corn and soybeans, are used as animal feed or ingredients in processed foods, and without a labeling system it’s virtually impossible for the average consumer to determine which products use biotech crops.

Melissa Diane Smith’s book “Going Against GMOs” lists over 100 items that could contain ingredients derived from biotech crops, including various sweeteners, baking soda, cooking oil, pet food, nutritional supplements and more.

Vegans and vegetarians aren’t off the hook—Smith also lists tofu, tempeh and whey protein powders as possibly containing biotech ingredients. Although she espouses the benefits of a diet that avoids biotech ingredients, Smith’s book left me pondering the futility of it all.

The best example of how ingrained biotech crops are in our food system comes from the book “King Corn,” which spawned a documentary of the same name.

Next time you go to a restaurant, think about how many items in your meal contain corn. The meat probably came from an animal that was corn-fed. If an item is fried, the breading probably contains cornstarch, and may have been cooked in corn oil. Your beverage may contain corn syrup, and ingredients for your meal were possibly delivered in a truck running on biofuel made from—you guessed it—corn.

Yet, GMOs go much further than our food systems. Genetically modified microbes are used in making biofuels, and medications. The first GMO was a bacteria created by Herbert Boyer in 1978, which he used to synthesize insulin for diabetes patients. Prior to Boyer, insulin had to be harvested from the pancreas of livestock.

Information resources

At this point, I have spent four years discerning GMO myth from fact, and despite the length of this post, it doesn’t not even begin to address the enormity of information out there. Therefore, dear reader, I encourage you to not take my word for it. Educate yourself, so that whatever opinion you have (whether you agree with me or not) is an informed opinion.

I promise you that only good things can come about when people know more about their food and where it comes from.

The Hawaii Ag Foundation has a Local Inside CSA program and a blog that addresses various food-related issues.

The Hawaii Ag Foundation also holds a quarterly panel discussion on called Eat Think Drink. The inaugural event was held in November 2016, and featured Chef Michel Nischan of Wholesome Wave, John Martin of Vice Munchies, State Senator Donovan De La Cruz, Wendy Akiyama of Armstron Produce, Judah Lum of Kahuku Farms, and Alec Sou of Aloun Farms. The next one should be in April or May.

Visit the Monsanto farm. They host outreach events regularly, and anyone can schedule appointments to tour the farm at monsantohawaii.com. Here is video of John Purcell leading a tour I attended in March 2016.

(Visited 135 times, 9 visits today)

Ed Morita

Ed Morita has spent over a 15 years working at some of the country’s premiere resorts and restaurants, including the Halekulani Hotel, The Greenbrier Resort & Spa in West Virginia, Bay Harbor Yacht Club in Michigan along with Longhi’s Restaurant, Highway Inn Kaka‘ako, and currently at the Modern Honolulu.

13 thoughts on “An informed opinion on GMOs

  • January 30, 2017 at 8:02 am
    Permalink

    I appreciate the balanced view with research! Thanks for this, it gives me something to think about.

    Reply
  • January 30, 2017 at 2:13 pm
    Permalink

    Congrats ed! Good insight. Cant wait for part 2 😉

    Reply
  • January 30, 2017 at 6:45 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t see any mention of the first “biotech” (as you call it) sold in the produce section. That would be the flavor savor tomato. Remember those?

    See, I don’t have a problem with a Gardner or a farmer mixing a white rose and red rose to make a pink rose. its all roses, just trying to control the color or size or petal count. No problem!

    But when yo cross breed two different species that would never meet in nature EVER. That’s what I take issue with.

    So how was that Flavor Savor Tomato made? Why taking a flounder fish DNA and putting it in a tomato thinking the tomato could be impervious to frost if it had flounder capabilities.

    And science dictates (not me) that the DNA of one of them has to be given a virus to weaken it to force the foreign DNA in it. So what’s the virus? That’s right, you don’t know.

    And if it’s anything like the chickenpox virus that can reawaken in you 50 years later as Shingles??? I’ll pass!!!

    And that in a nut shell is why people don’t care for your “biotech” food once they’re educated about it. It’s not Gregor Mendells “hybridization” method, as you think it is by splicing plant A to Plant B.

    Reply
    • January 30, 2017 at 9:31 pm
      Permalink

      I understand your apprehension towards GMOs. When I first started researching this topic, I came across a multitude anti-GMO articles. I am very familiar with the “Fish Tomato” and it’s role as an early rallying cry.

      As I stated, in my article, everything in this post is as I know it, factual. Whilst reading article after article, truth be told, a lot of it seemed like bad science fiction intended to play on people’s fears. The thing about propaganda is that it doesn’t hold up to persistent fact checking.

      The main misunderstanding about the Flavr Savr tomato is that it was a different project from the anti-freeze research that was being conducted.

      The Flavr Savr was created when a gene was added to interfere with the production of an enzyme that breaks down the pectin in the cell walls of the tomato, which increased its shelf life.

      As for the anti-freeze project, that tomato never made it to market because it never really worked.

      Reply
    • February 11, 2017 at 2:15 pm
      Permalink

      L, you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. The Flavr Savr tomato – I like your spelling better, but mine is what they called it – does not contain any genes from fish, or for that matter from anything else except a tomato. The developers took one gene and added a copy of itself turned around. That caused the suppression of the enzyme that causes the ripe tomato to become mushy. There’s no virus involved at all. I suggest you consult the book First Fruit, by Belinda Martineau, who was the developer of the Flavr Savr. By the way, Dr. Martineau is NOT a supporter of using GMOs so you can probably trust her.

      The kind of tomato you mean was an experiment conducted by DNA Plant Technology. The experiment did not work and such tomatoes were never involved in commerce. All those Greenpeace posters showing tomatoes with fins or fish with leaves are just street theater, not facts.

      You also seem concerned with the dangers of viruses. No GMO contains a virus. Many of them contain a gene from a virus, which is not the infectious part of a virus. It’s a promoter, which is a gene that turns on another gene. The virus it came from is the cauliflower mosaic virus. That virus is always found in cauliflower plants, and in their many relatives (broccoli, cabbage, kale, brussels sprouts,… and has, for millennia, been incorporated into the genome of those species.

      Reply
  • January 31, 2017 at 4:55 pm
    Permalink

    You make two different statements for the beginning of GMO.

    “…Your organic produce is a GMO… …since humans first started cultivating crops, we have been manipulating the genes of plants and animals to instill desired traits…”

    “…The first GMO was a bacteria created by Herbert Boyer in 1978, which he used to synthesize insulin for diabetes patients…”

    You don’t get to have both arguments, Chef. Selectively choosing plants and animals for specific traits is either the same or it is not the same as injecting genes into bacteria for the sake of creating hormones.

    (A side question not “based on facts” is, are other GMO plants unintentionally creating human hormones that we are consuming?)

    (…and since we are discussing facts. Scientists measure the body’s hormones, like insulin in the blood, by parts per BILLION. Toxicity of most things like, lead and atrazine, are measured in parts per MILLION. There is a thousand fold difference in what our body produces to make physiological changes and what we measure to see if external influences are affecting our bodies.)

    Biotech farms use pesticides and organic farms use pesticides is a false equivalency. Biotech farms use seeds that are specifically tolerant to pesticides produced by the parent companies of the seed producers. Biotech farmers spray those pesticides as an integral part of producing those crops. Organic farmers resist putting pesticides on their crops, either because they damage young plants, like micro and baby greens, or more likely because they are expensive and a last resort.

    Ed, I don’t want to reframe your question entirely, but perhaps a diversion to organic versus conventional farming is worth a discussion.

    Please take a look at the study done by the Rodale Institute. (A 30 year, and the longest study ever conducted) looking at the sustainability of conventional versus organic farming.

    http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

    Where is the money going? Where is the “food” going? What is happening to the soil? And, much more importantly, do our food choices affect those outcomes?

    Reply
    • January 31, 2017 at 5:33 pm
      Permalink

      I love long comments!

      Some people do make a distinction between cross breeding methods, which is the reason for my GMO vs Biotec Crop distinction.

      GMO is a blanket term that can be used to identify anything that has in one way or another been modified from its original state. Therefore, all biotech crops are GMOs, but not all GMOs are biotech crops. The primary reason I made the distinction is to point out how people decide that some methods are okay and others are not.

      Regarding my mention of Herbert Boyer, and his creation of the first GMO bacteria, I considered referring to it as biotech because of the methods he used, however I decided to keep the biotech term for food products for continuity purposes within the post.

      Regarding your pesticide question, I am not saying that all organic farms use pesticides. The use of pesticides, be it natural or synthetic, is up to the farmer. The distinction is a part of the organic certification standards set by the USDA. An organic farmer can chose to use naturally derived pesticides, or they can use no pesticides. It is completely up to them. I do agree with Melissa Zeman that there should be regulated instructions for natural pesticides similar to the ones in place for synthetic brands.

      As for further examination into organic vs conventional farming, what areas would you like see?

      Reply
      • February 12, 2017 at 3:31 am
        Permalink

        Ed, it’s true that if you follow the dictionary definition of genetic modification, almost all crops are genetically modified, but the anti-GMO folks are using this terminology as a shorthand for genetically modified using recombinant DNA technology. From the language in the various proposed laws about labeling, they make it clear what they mean.

        When you post the standard reply “all crops are genetically modified”, it induces the standard response that “there’s a big difference between modification by crossbreeding and modification in a laboratory”. Of course, those are far from the only two options. There’s exposure to gamma rays, chemically induced chromosome doubling, embryo rescue, etc.

        Let’s let them use the GMO abbreviation. It saves time.

        Reply
  • February 13, 2017 at 9:42 am
    Permalink

    Thanks for the informed talk on GMO’s. I am a retired farmer and I always have to defend GMO’s. I think the world would starve if it was not for GMO’s.

    Reply

Leave a Reply