science environment

4 Takeaways From A GM Labeling Pep Rally

By David Steves (OPB)
Sept. 25, 2013 11:23 p.m.
Should labeling be required for genetically modified foods? Hearing from a panel of advocates sheds light on the thinking behind this push.

Should labeling be required for genetically modified foods? Hearing from a panel of advocates sheds light on the thinking behind this push.

Flickr/Mista Yuck

Waypoints-blog-logo-FINAL-for-posts
THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR:

Moderating a panel discussion isn't the same as reporting on one. Instead of sitting in the audience, scribbling away and glancing at your recorder to be sure it's still recording, you find yourself sweating different details:

You make sure to get the names right when introducing speakers, listen for pauses in the conversation, and try hard to call on audience members for questions based on which ones had their hands up first.

Those difference were driven home for me when I moderated a recent panel discussion about genetically modified organisms. The session was part of Portland's annual foodie fest, called FEAST Portland.

It was a decidedly one-sided discussion. Two panelists represented the natural foods sector. one was a food industry stock analyst turned global food industry reformer. And the fourth was the manager of the campaign to pass Washington's Initiative 522, which would require labeling of many food items in stores that contain genetically engineered organisms.

As I told the audience, this wasn't likely to become a food fight over GMOs. And it didn't. But it was a chance to find out how a diverse set of players from one side of the issue want to frame the debate about genetically engineered foods.

THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR:

I left the hour-and-a-half session with a few takeaways. Here are four of them:

1. Keep It Simple (to) Succeed. It's a variation of the old "KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid" rule of thumb for public speakers. For the GM event's speakers, keeping their message simple took on extra significance: keeping audience members' brows from furrowing as they ponder conflicting and complicated ideas.

An independent poll this month showed two out of three Washington voters said they would vote for I-522. A similar proposal in California enjoyed a similarly big lead in the run-up to the election. But as opponents raised doubt and uncertainty about GM food labeling, support melted away and Proposition 37 failed at the ballot box.

2. It's About The Transparency (Not The Science). Keeping it simple meant steering clear of the complications of scientific research around GM crops and food products they become a part of. Audience members tried to get panelists to talk about the scientific evidence that GM foods are unsafe. One woman who said she is a health researcher asked what kind of research the panelists would want to see happen, but no one offered anything concrete.

Panelists seemed more interested in talking about the importance of transparency. As the panel's food industry reform advocate Robyn O'Brien noted, labeling tells us whether orange juice is fresh squeezed or made from concentrate...so why shouldn't consumers know if their food is free of GMOs?

3. Environmental Concerns Run High. It seemed to me that the most substantive comments about the science of GMOs was about the environmental concerns, rather than than the human health implications of genetically engineered food. Natural foods company founder Aaron Stephens said one of his biggest worries about GMOs is that weeds will develop a tolerance for the herbicides that GM crops have been engineered to withstand -- resulting in "superweeds" that alter the current ecological balance.

4. Labeling May Be An End But It's Also A Means. While the on-message message from panelists focused on right-to-know transparency, they also suggested that a labeling law could have further-reaching consequences.

One consequence would be that once consumers can make an informed choice between a package of tortillas or a box of cereal with or without GMO ingredients, they will choose the GMO-free option. And that, in turn, could lead farmers and food manufacturers to opt against producing food that's been genetically engineered in the first place.

-- David Steves

THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR:
THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR: