In December, members of our writing group are on the couch in a corner of Amies

living room drinking vanilla hazelnut tea with soymilk listening to her story. A large
wooden table laden with mandarin oranges, persimmons, and a rice-celery salad
with purple tomatoes occupies the other half of the cozy room. In front of us is a
coee table piled high with cheeses and homemade treats including !hristollen, a
buttery egg bread "avored with citrus, cinnamon, and vanilla#a traditional $onald
family holiday favorite %recipe &.'(.
)efore we met Amie, she was a *en priest at the famed +reen +ulch ,arm in -arin
!ounty, a )uddhist practice center oering training in meditation and organic
farming. After ten years as a priest, she studied midwifery at the .niversity of
!alifornia, /an ,rancisco, while single-handedly raising her daughter. /he is now a
certi0ed nurse midwife in Davis. /he delivered our three children and therefore
retains near-divine status in our eyes.
1ne would think that a woman with such a history and reputation would be fearless.
)ut apparently, this is not the case. Amie tells us that she has always been afraid of
heights, and had chosen rock climbing to face her fears. 2he hazard of the sport is
apparent. After all, a long fall can kill. )ut in a twist to Amies story, it turns out that
she was only three feet o the ground and attached by a rope to a skilled partner
who loved her. 2herefore, the probability of a negative conse3uence was e4tremely
low. It is clear then that our own sense of risk can frighten us even if the activity is
not likely to cause harm.
In an interview published in the 5ew 6ork 2imes in 7889, :eter -. /andman, a risk
communications consultant, said, ;2he likelihood of being aected by a possible
hazard is not the ma<or factor in"uencing whether a person feels =outrage. Instead,
factors like control and familiarity are much stronger in"uences> %,ountain 7889(.
2ake pesticides for e4ample. -any consumers have grown accustomed to pesticides
despite the fact that certain kinds, such as the ;carbamate> type, are estimated to
poison tens of thousands of people each year, mostly farm workers. Despite the fact
that some of these poisonings are fatal, relatively few people worry about pesticides
or protest against their use on farms. In a similar vein, the rising prevalence of
obesity in children has been linked, in part, to overconsumption of highly sweetened
drinks %?udwig et al. 788'(. If trends in obesity continue, one in three American
children born in 7888 will go on to develop diabetes in their lifetimes. A few schools
around the nation have begun to ban or limit the size of soft drinks available to their
students, but it is by no means commonplace. In contrast, <ust the mention of
genetic engineering, a process that has been used for thirty years and so far has
not harmed a single person or animal, can cause alarm. 2he apocalyptic 3uality of
the anti-+@ advocacy seems wildly disproportionate to the potential risk,
particularly in the conte4t of the bene0ts.
.nlike "uoride or some types of synthetic or organic pesticides such as rotenone,
which are un3uestionably lethal to animals at high concentrations, +@ traits are
composed of the same chemical building blocks %D5A and proteins( that we eat
every day. Indeed, these are the same components that )uddha ate 7,A88 years
ago, and they are what we will be eating 7,A88 years from now. 2h at is, if humans
survive the increasing overcrowding of our planet, inade3uate nutrition, disease,
poverty, and pollution of our environment. Bithin one hour, CD of the D5A in
foods is digested completely %/chubert et al. 'CC&( and most proteins are digested
even faster. In other words, the "uoridated toothpaste on your toothbrush or the
soft drinks in your refrigerator likely present greater risks to your health than the
genetically engineered papaya you had for breakfast.
It seems we may be worrying about the wrong hazards. Bhen Amie is 0nished with
her short story, I read an e4cerpt about anti-+@ legislation from this book. 2he group
listens politely until it is time for discussion. Amie skips the constructive criti3ue and
moves straight to the point. ;Eow can you be sure that it isnt risky to eat +@
foodsF>
1f all the concerns about +@ food, this 3uestion of risk presents the biggest worry
for the most people. 2he ../. 5ational Academy of /cience %5A/( addressed a
broader 3uestion by asking, ;Is the process of adding genes to our food by genetic
engineering any more risky than adding genes by traditional breedingF>
2he answer is no. Girtually everything we eat has been genetically modi0ed in some
way, and virtually every food we eat poses some kind of risk, albeit a very, very
small risk. 2he 5A/ committee determined that both the process of genetic
engineering and traditional breeding pose similar risks of unintended conse3uences
%5A/ 788H(.
Bhen I e4plain this, Amie wants more detail. ;Bhat e4actly does the phrase
=unintended conse3uences actually meanF>
I go on to e4plain how, in my lab, we typically take a gene from one rice variety and
put it into another rice variety. 2he committee estimates that the risk of unintended
conse3uences resulting from this kind of work is similar to the risk that results from
conventional breeding with two e4isting rice varieties. 1n the other hand,
transferring a gene from a distantly related species, for e4ample, putting a bacterial
or 0sh gene into a plant, is more risky. 2hat sounds frightening until you realize that
traditional methods such as mutation breeding pose even greater risks.
;Bhat is mutation breedingF> asks -att. ;Eave I eaten a mutantF>
;In all likelihood, you have,> I answer. ;Bith mutation breeding, seeds are put in a
highly carcinogenic solution or treated with radiation to induce random changes in
the D5A. After germination, surviving seedlings that have new and useful traits are
then adopted by breeders.>
;2hat does sound much more risky than genetic engineering. Is that stu actually in
our food supplyF> Amie e4claims, looking skeptically at the salad in front of us.
;Bell, yes it is.> I e4plain that such induced-mutation techni3ues are commonly
used in traditional breeding and are thought to be 3uite similar to those that arise
spontaneously in nature. )ecause the chemical dousing is done only once during
the initial development of the mutant population and there are no chemicals left on
the plants after several breeding generations, it is considered very safe. )reeders
have taken advantage of both induced and spontaneous mutations to generate
useful traits such as stress tolerance and improved grain characteristics. In the last
seventy years, more than 7,7A8 mutant varieties have been released to plant
breeders including rice, wheat, barley, grapefruit, and cottonI more than half of
these were developed in the last twenty years %Ahloowalia et al. 788H(.
;/ometimes mutant plants can be 3uite delicious.> I say. 1ver ',888 years ago, a
spontaneous mutation gave rise to the rice needed for one of my favorite recipes,
sticky rice with mango, an ancient treat from 2hailand, which I share with the group
now %bo4 &.' and recipe &.7(.
1ne techni3ue to generate agronomically useful traits is called ;mutagenesis.>
During this process, the seeds are put in a mutagenic and highly carcinogenic
solution that induces random changes in the chemical letters of the D5A. 2he seeds
are then planted and usually about A8 will die. 2he seeds from the surviving
plants are collected, germinated, and surveyed for new traits by breeders. /uch
;induced-mutation> techni3ues have been commonly used in conventional breeding
and can result in the same mutants derived from spontaneous mutations that occur
in nature.
1ne of these spontaneous mutants gave rise to the precious sticky rice of 2hailand.
2h e sticky rice lacks the starch amylose, which constitutes up to J8% of the total
starch in nonsticky rice endosperm. 2h e lack of amylose is due to a mutation in a
gene called Ba4y, which encodes an enzyme re3uired for amylose synthesis %/ano
'CDH(. /ticky rice is an important culinary and cultural component throughout @ast
Asia and is used in festival foods and desserts. In upland regions of /outheast Asia,
it is a staple food in many homes. 2en percent of the rice traded each year is sticky
rice.
2he precise origin of ;sticky> rice remains obscure because sticky rice is not found
in the archeological record. ?aotian )uddhist legend places the origin of sticky rice
at around ''88 years ago, although !hinese folklore indicates that it was in
e4istence around the time of the death of the poet Ku 6uan more than 7888 years
ago %Lu 'CC7(. A recent study by two 5orth !arolina /tate .niversity geneticists
using modern genetic techni3ues now suggests that ;sticky> rice most likely
originated only once in /outheast Asia %1lsen and :urugganan 7887(.
2he researchers knew that dierent rice varieties all carry very similar genes, but in
a signi0cant proportion of cases %this varies from one species to the ne4t( a given
gene in one variety will be slightly dierent from its counterpart in a very closely
related variety. 2hat is the nature and basics of genetic diversity#genes dier in
each rice variety. 2he researchers hypothesized that if a single breeder 7888 years
ago developed a really good sticky rice variety, and then generously shared it with
other breeders, the new varieties would all contain e4actly the same Ba4y gene. In
other words, the Ba4y gene would have a single origin. 2o test this idea they looked
at the se3uence of the Ba4y gene of '8A rice strains and found that all those that
were sticky carried nearly the same se3uence in the Ba4y gene, including a
mutation that knocked out production of amylose. 2his result suggests that the
early breeders of sticky rice liked the adhesive 3uality conferred by that single Ba4y
mutation and preserved that particular trait through breeding by incorporating it
into new varieties with other desirable traits.
2he development of ;sticky> rice is a good e4ample of how plant breeders choose
modi0ed plants in response to local cultural preferences.
-att <umps in, ;)ut that case is dierent, a spontaneous mutation is natural. /urely
that is a safer kind of rice than a rice mutant induced by carcinogenic compounds.
In any case, we can avoid that risk by purchasing organic food.
> I disagree. ;2his is a common misperception by many consumers who believe
induced genetic changes are =unnatural. .nder organic regulations, crops
developed using chemical mutagenesis are acceptable and are not regulated for
food or environmental safety.>
-att is surprised, ;@ven though the 5A/ reported that the mutation breeding
process is more likely than genetic engineering to lead to une4pected
conse3uences, mutant food can still be certi0ed organicF>
;6es, that is right. $isk is relative and this is a good e4ample. ?ike all methods of
breeding and genetic engineering, the risk of introducing a negative conse3uence
by either method is e4tremely low. /o low, in fact, that no one worried about
unintended conse3uences until genetic engineering came along.
> I pass around the rice-celery salad with purple tomatoes and ask !indy what kind
of rice she used %recipe &.J(.
/he answers, ;2h at is short grain brown rice from one of our favorite local
companies, ?undberg ,amily ,arms. I bought it at the Davis ,ood !o-op.>
:leased to have such a perfect e4ample in front of me, I say, ;2his certi0ed organic
rice is derived from a radiation-treated variety called !alrose &9> %Ahloowalia et al.
788HI M. Miang, ?undberg ,amily ,arms, personal communication, 7889(. 2he group
looks at each other, seemingly surprised, but they all dig in nonetheless. /oon the
crunching of celery 0lls the small room.
In between bites, we talk about other compounds in food. )ecause plants are rich in
sugars, proteins, vitamins and minerals, they make obvious and tempting treats for
various predators. :lants cannot run away, so instead they have evolved a set of
defenses to protect themselves. !elery is seemingly benign, yet it produces to4ic
compounds called psoralens to discourage predators and avoid being a snack too
early in its life cycle. /ometimes humans are the accidental victims of psoralen
poisoning.
)reeders have selected celery with relatively high amounts of psoralens because
farmers prefer to grow insect resistant plants and consumers prefer to buy
undamaged produce. .nfortunately, workers who harvest such celery sometimes
develop a severe skin rash %5A/ 788H(, an unintended conse3uence of this
conventional breeding. It is possible that if the gene encoding the to4ic protein had
been cloned and studied before being introduced into the new varieties, farm
workers would have learned of the harmful eects before e4posure.
$aoul thinks of another e4ample, ;I have discovered that green potatoes make
pretty good rodent poison. 1ne day I went into the certi0ed organic hoophouse to
0nd three dead mice near some freshly eaten green potatoes.> :otatoes produce
glycoalkaloid solanine, a to4ic compound, although most varieties have amounts so
small that they are considered nonhazardous to animals. /ome potato varieties,
however, have higher levels than others and certain conditions such as light can
cause hazardous levels of the to4in to be produced.
/o far, compounds that are to4ic to animals have only cropped up in foods
developed through conventional breeding approaches. 2here have not been any
adverse health or environmental eects resulting from commercialized +@ crops.
2his may be because foods produced by +@ undergo additional scrutiny, or it may
be that there simply are not yet many +@ crops on the market. Bhatever the
reason, this important fact is sometimes lost in the debates on +@ food.
;/o what about traits from unrelated speciesF Bhat if we put 0sh genes into rice,
can the new trait itself be a problemF> Amie persists.
;Eumans share enormous numbers of genes with plants and animals, so this
particular e4ample may or may not be problematic. 2he 3uestion, however, gets to
the second important aspect of +@ food. Bith +@, you can put genes from any
species into a plant, which means that each new +@ trait needs to be evaluated on
a case by-case basis.> I reply. I e4plain that although there has never been a +@
crop on the market that has harmed humans, there are cases of une4pected
conse3uences in laboratory e4periments. ,or instance, when a gene encoding a
common bean protein was e4pressed in peas, a modi0 ed form was present that
induced an immune response in mice. 2his +@ pea was never commercialized
%:rescott et al. 788A(. Another e4ample is )t corn, which is engineered to be
resistant to common corn pests %see bo4 A.J(. /urprisingly, in addition to the
e4pected resistance to earworm and rootworm, the transgenic )t corn also contains
signi0cantly lower amounts of to4ins produced by fungi that proliferate when stem
are damaged by insects.
;Eas any +@ food on the market caused allergic reactions in humansF> asks !indy.
>5o,> I reply. I go on to tell them about an e4periment in which a known allergen %a
protein from the )razil nut( was engineered into soybean. 2he new +@ variety
induced production of reactive antibodies in human sera of in individuals previously
known to be allergic to )razil nuts %5ordlee et al. 'CC9(. 2his variety of +@ soybeans
was never 0eld-tested nor commercialized for chicken feed as originally intended,
partly because comprehensive safety evaluation of this +@ crop revealed this
adverse eect prior to commercialization.
As a midwife, Amie is well-versed in risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth.
/he reminds me that when I was pregnant with our third child, Audrey, she
suggested that we deliver Audrey at our home in our outdoor hot tub. ;2oo risky,>
many of our friends and family counseled. 1ur ,rench friends, /erge and @velyne,
were especially surprised, because in ,rance, it is more common to drink wine
during pregnancy than to give birth at home in a hot tub. 2he prevailing assumption
is that hospital-based deliveries are safer for both mother and childI indeed most
women do prefer the comfort of knowing that the most modern technology is close
by, especially because there are real and documented hazards clearly associated
with childbirth. 6et, studies have shown that healthy women who wish to deliver at
home have no increased risk either to themselves or to their babies %Ackermann-
?iebrich et al. 'CC9 (. In fact, at least one study showed that for women who have
previously given birth and have planned ahead, delivery at home with a trained
midwife is actually less risky than a hospital birth %Biegers et al. 'CC9 (. 2hese
scienti0c studies were reassuring, and because we lived 0ve minutes from the
hospital and knew that Amies skills were superb, we decided to deliver Audrey at
home.
Amie smiles, she seems to know what I have been thinking, ;It turned out okay,
didnt itF> Indeed, she is right. Audrey was born at high noon on a spring day in the
water under the perfume of our trellised purple wisteria. I remember clearly the sun
hats on all of us, the laughter, and the sweet taste of the freshly s3ueezed
lemonade my mother had lovingly prepared.
;)ut really, its all about the children for me,> Amie continues in a serious tone. ;I
dont mean only our own children, but all those who will grow up on this planet. Be
want to leave a cleaner environment that will support abundant and nutritious
crops.>
;.h-huh,> I agree. I am not able to say much more at the moment because my
mouth is full of !hristollen. 6et, Amies comment gets me thinking about the
potential impact of genetic engineering on young children in the developing world
and our responsibility to them.
It is well established that vitamin A de0ciency %GAD( is a public health problem in
more than '88 countries, especially in Africa and /outheast Asia, hitting hardest
young children and pregnant women. Borldwide, over '7H million children are
estimated to be vitamin A de0 cient. -any of these children go blind or become ill
from diarrhea, and nearly eight million preschool age children die each year as the
result of this de0ciency. 2he Borld Eealth 1rganization estimates that improved
vitamin A nutritional status could prevent the deaths of '.JN7.A million late-infancy
and preschool age children each year %Eumphrey et al. 'CC7(. 2h e heartache of
losing a child to a preventable disease is not one commonly encountered in the
developed world.
2o combat GAD, the Borld Eealth 1rganization has proposed an arsenal of
nutritional ;well-being weapons> including a combination of breastfeeding and
vitamin A supplementation, coupled with long-term solutions, such as the promotion
of vitamin A-rich diets and food forti0cation. In response to this challenge, a group
of $ockefeller ,oundation-supported scientists decided to try to fortify rice plants
with higher levels of carotenoids, which are precursors to vitamin A. 2hey
introduced a gene from daodils %which make a lot of carotenoids, the pigment that
gives the "ower its yellow color( and two genes from a bacterium into rice using
genetic engineering %6e et al. 7888(. 2he resulting +@ rice grains were golden and
carotenoid-rich.
Amie re0 lls our cups and I take a sip before continuing. ;In a sense, the resulting
nutritionally enhanced rice is similar to drinking vitamin D enriched milk#e4cept
put there by a dierent process.>
;6es,> I reply. ;It is also similar to adding iodine to saltI a process credited
withdrastically reducing iodine-de0ciency disorders in infants.>
;Bill eating carotenoid-forti0 ed rice really help the childrenF> -att asks.
I tell them about my recent conversation with my colleague, -ike +rusack who
works at the !hildrens 5utrition $esearch !enter in Eouston, 2e4as. -ike told me
that preliminary results from human feeding studies suggest that the carotenoids in
;+olden $ice> can be properly metabolized into the vitamin A that is needed by
children %-. +rusack, personal communication, 7889(. 1ther studies also support
the idea that widespread consumption of +olden $ice would reduce vitamin A
de0ciency, saving thousands of lives %/tein et al. 7889(. 2he positive eects of
+olden $ice are predicted to be most pronounced in the lowest income groups at a
fraction of the cost of the current supplementation programs %/tein et al. 7889(. If
con0rmed, this relatively low-tech, sustainable, publicly funded, people-centered
eort can complement other approaches such as the development of home gardens
with vitamin A-rich crops such as beans and pumpkins.
.nfortunately, because vitamin A rice is the product of genetic engineering, some
people view it with suspicion and worry about long-term conse3uences %bo4 &.7(.
/imilarly in some nations, iodization was thought to be a governmental plot to
poison the salt. In a 7889 5ew 6ork 2imes article, <ournalist Donald -c5eil describes
how iodized salt was blamed for AIDs, diabetes, seizures, impotence, and
peevishness. ;Iodized salt . . . will make pickled vegetables e4plode, ruin caviar or
soften hard cheese.> In Oazakhstan, breaking down that kind of resistance took both
money and political leadership. )ut it eventually succeeded. 2oday CH of
households in Oazakhstan use iodized salt and the .nited 5ations is e4pected to
certify the country oPcially free of iodine-de0ciency disorders.
@ven though the vast ma<ority of scientists view the process of +@ as safe, some
consumers still worry that the consumption of +@ food could cause long-term eects
that we will not determine until it is too late. 2his is <ust the kind of concern that is
addressed by Allan -azur, a sociologist and professor of public aairs at the
-a4well /chool of /yracuse .niversity, in his book 2rue Barnings and ,alse Alarms.
2o identify hallmarks that could help predict the truth or falsity of an alleged hazard,
-azur assesses J' health warnings raised between 'CHD and 'C&' about diverse
technologies including pesticides and "uoridation of community drinking water. Bith
J8NA8 years of hindsight, he identi0es three characteristics, apparent from the
outset of a controversy that most eectively distinguished true warning from false
alarms.
Barnings turned out to be more than '. twice as likely to be true if the 0rst
conspicuous source of the public warning was based on a report of scienti0c
research produced at a recognized scienti0c institution. If the alarm was raised by a
government agent or citizen advocacy group it was more likely to be false. 7. 2rue
warnings were less likely than false alarms to have sponsors with biases against the
producer of the alleged hazard. J. Barnings appearing in the news partly because of
their connection to earlier news stories were more often false than warnings
reaching the news without a boost from collateral sources %-azur 788H(.
It has been nearly thirty years since the 0rst warnings were raised about the
process of genetic engineering as being inherently dangerous. Eere, I apply -azurs
criteria to assess the safety of +@ food.
'. 2he 0rst conspicuous source of a public warning about releasing +@ organisms
into the environment was raised by a citizen advocacy group. In my second year as
a graduate student at .! )erkeley, there was a public outcry over the 0rst
@nvironmental :rotection Agency approved release of genetically engineered
organisms into the environment. 2he bacteria, called ,rostban, was created to
protect plants from frost by /teve ?indow, a low-key professor who worked across
the hallway from my laboratory. 2he early morning application of ,rostban on a
strawberry patch in 'CD& was witnessed and reported by &A media outlets from
throughout the world %Oahn Q !o. 7889(. 2his step inaugurated both the 0eld use of
genetic engineering for agricultural and environmental purposes, as well as the
beginning of protests against the emerging biotechnology industry. Although
,rostban was widely viewed as harmless to the environment and potential
consumers by the scienti0c community, critics warned of possible environmental
disasters from this ;unnatural process> %$ifkin 'CDJ(. 2oday, there is no longer any
signi0cant concern about this product. In fact, a related strain is being used at ski
resorts under the trade name /noma4 to increase the eectiveness of their snow-
making machinery %6ork /now, Inc. 788'(.
7. -any of the sponsors of anti-+@ protests dislike -onsanto, one of the 0rst large
scale commercial producers of +@ seed. 2hese critics are concerned that the +@
process will enhance corporate control of our food supply. /uch increased control,
however, if it occurs, would be socioeconomic and have little to do with the risk of
eating the food. /uch nonscienti0c concerns can only be addressed through policy.
J. 2he warnings about +@ food coincided with outbreaks of food safety problems in
other parts of the world. ,or e4ample, mad cow disease %which has nothing to do
with +@( was 0 rst reported in 'CD9 in the .nited Oingdom %.O(, shaking con0dence
in the reliability of regulatory agencies.
All three of these characteristics are typical of false alarms. 2herefore, the belief of
the vast ma<ority of scientists and scienti0c organizations that no long-term or
short-term risks are likely to be associated with the process of genetic engineering
is also supported by -azurs criteria.
$aoul changes the sub<ect to ask about the safety of the antibiotic resistance genes
that are sometimes present in transgenic plants. ;Bhat if the antibiotic resistance
genes are somehow ac3uired by the bacteria that live in our intestinesF>
;According to a committee of the 5ational Academy of /ciences, this is unlikely> I
answer. ,irst the gene would have to escape the human digestive <uices, then it
would have to survive intact in the human gut and 0 nally it would have to move
into the intestinal bacteria. Indeed, one study showed that transgenes in +@ soy are
completely degraded by the time they get to the large intestine %5etherwood et al.
788H(. ,urthermore, many antibiotic resistance genes are already common in
bacteria and have been in our food all along. 2h ere are also several technological
advances that make $aouls concern even more remote. ,or e4ample, new markers,
such as sugar enablement markers %see 0gure H.J( are now available, so antibiotic
resistancegenes are being used less often. Also, many new transgenic crops, such
as LA7' rice that is resistant to bacterial disease, do not contain marker genes at all
%Dr. /hirong Mia, )iotechnology $esearch Institute, !hinese Academy of Agricultural
/ciences, personal communication(. A far greater risk is the overuse of antibiotics
for medical purposes, which selects for resistant bacteria %+old and -oellering
'CC9( and the use of animal feed supplemented with antibiotics %Oidd et al. 7887(.
Eens are a prime e4ample of the risks of using antibiotics in feed. In most large
commercial poultry operations, low levels of antibiotics are mi4ed with their grain,
both to spur faster growth and to counteract the spread of disease that stress and
living in close 3uarters %more than twelve birds per s3uare meter( can promote
%,ood and Drug Administration !enter for Geterinary -edicine 7888(. It is now
known that after repeated e4posure to low doses of antibiotics, bacteria can
become resistant. If antibiotic-resistant bacteria proliferate in the intestines of the
hens and if people then eat undercooked chickens, people can become ill. /cientists
now hypothesize that antibiotic use is linked to the evolution of multiple drug-
resistant bacteria and the loss in ePcacy of drugs important to human medicine,
though this is diPcult to demonstrate by rigorous scienti0c methods %Anderson et
al. 788JI !ommittee on Drug .se in ,ood Animals, :anel on Animal Eealth, ,ood
/afety, and :ublic Eealth, )oard on Agriculture, 5ational $esearch !ouncil 'CCCI
Biley et al. 788H(.
Amie says, ;@ven if +@ crops are considered safe by most scientists, why not simply
label the produce from these crops and let people decide for themselvesF I like to
know what I am eating and make my own choices.>
I answer, ;I am also a label reader. If there is an e4cess of added sugar or too many
ingredients with names that I dont recognize then I dont buy the product. 5ot all
information, however, is useful.>
A few months ago our local food coop began posting red ;consumer alert> signs
that say, ;!onventional foods that contain corn, soy, or canola may be genetically
engineered.> I 0nd these signs more annoying than helpful. It is a little bit like the
warnings posted on science te4tbooks in some states that say, ;2his te4tbook
discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as
scienti0c e4planation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. 5o
one was present when life 0rst appeared on @arth. 2herefore, any statement about
lifes origins should be considered as theory, not fact> %1klahoma ?egislature 788JI
!line 7889(. 5either statement says anything informative about the state of our
food nor the creation of our universe. Bith no speci0c hazards associated with +@
foods or evolution, how can a consumer use these statements to make a more
informed choice about the risk to their health or to their faith in +odF
2he 5ational $esearch !ouncil !ommittee states that attempts to assess food
safety based solely on the process are scienti0cally un<usti0ed. $ather than adding
a general label about the process with which a plant variety was developed, it would
make more sense to label food so that consumers are informed about what is
actually in or on the food. )ut this, too, is not necessarily helpful. ,or some people it
may be informative to read a label that says, ;may contain traces of carbamate
pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals> or
;may contain trace amounts of puri0ed )acillus thuringiensis protein, which kill
?eptidoptera %a class of insects(.> )ut is it helpful to most consumers who are not
familiar with the scienceF
Eere is another e4ample. If we carry forward with labeling the product, then organic
produce treated with rotenone, a ;natural> pesticide favored by some organic
farmers, would need to be labeled with the following, ;may contain trace amounts
of rotenone#chronic e4posure can cause damage to liver and kidney>
%1ccupational /afety and Eealth Administration 'CCD(. 1rganic super sweet corn
would re3uire this labelR ;!arries a genetic mutation induced by radiation
mutagenesis, resulting in the presence of a mutant protein.> 1rganically grown
papaya would need to be markedR ;may contain vast amounts of papaya ringspot
viral $5A and protein> %see bo4 H.7(. 2hese labels are so ominous that it is not likely
that many people would feel comfortable eating these organic fruits and
vegetables. /till, there is no evidence that any of these food products are
hazardous. After all, we have been eating sweet corn and organic papaya safely for
years.
;It seems to me that if the labeling statement does not help with safety
interventions or inform consumer choice, it does not serve the purpose> I say, 0
nally answering Amies 3uestion. ;It only confuses and unnecessarily alarms
people.> As it is almost time to go, we pause for a last snack of cheddar. I mention
that the cheeses we are eating, like most that have been sold since 'CC8, were
made with genetically engineered ingredients. )efore that, the curdling agent was
isolated from the stomach of young calves %see bo4 A.'(.
-att looks interested and remarks, ;2h e good thing about it is that you can eat +@
cheese and still keep kosher.> -att follows this Mewish tradition, which prohibits
eating meat and dairy together. Amie, a vegetarian, wrinkles her nose and says
<okingly, ;Eow awful#enzymes from slaughtered animals. I prefer the +@ cheese,
but, :am, I think I will let you take the 0rst bite.> 1n that note, we gather our plates,
bring them to the kitchen, step out the door, and say good-bye.
2he ne4t day, I am in my oPce sitting restlessly in front of my computer, 0elding
too many 3uestions over e-mail. I feel overworked and short on time. A 3uick glance
at the clock tells me that I am late again for swim practice so I grab my bag, skip
downstairs, step outside, <ump on my bike, and pedal to the pool. .sually swimming
in the middle of the day alters my state of mind dramatically. ,ive minutes later, I
pull up to the chain link fence surrounding the pool and park my bike. -y swim
buddies are talking and laughingI they look comfortable in their bathing suits even
though it is Manuary. I hurry into the locker room, change into my swimsuit, pull on
my plastic cap and press the goggles snugly over my eyes. I head out to the pool
and <ump in. It is cold so I swim 3uickly to warm up. /oon I am listening to the
chugging sound of each stroke and starting to forget the business of the laboratory.
Bhen I come up to breathe there is a faint smell of chlorine and coconut sun-screen.
In Davis, every day is .G-rich and swimmers skin needs protection. At each end of
the pool, I "ip, feel for the wall and push o with head s3ueezed between my arms,
toes pointed, and body like an arrow. I en<oy the feeling of slicing through the water.
As I swim, I think about the de0nition of risk used by David $opeik, director of risk
communication at the Earvard !enter of $isk AnalysisR ;the probability that
e4posure to a hazard will lead to a negative conse3uence> %$opeik and +ray 7887(.
1vere4posure to both sun and water can cause death from skin cancer or drowning.
6et it is a risk we take because the bene0ts are clear. )ut what if it were e4plained
in a dierent wayF 2ake water for e4ample, which is composed of two atoms of
hydrogen and one of o4ygen. /aying ;water> does not frighten people but what if
they heard someone say ;Dihydrogen -ono4ide %DE-1( %i.e., water(, a colorless
and odorless chemical compound, is perhaps the single most prevalent of all
chemicals that can be dangerous to human life. Despite this truth, most people are
not unduly concerned about the dangers of Dihydrogen -ono4ide> %Bay 7889,
emphasis in original(. Bith such a warning and without additional information, I
would not go near the stu . )oth sun and water are essential to human life, as well
as to the plants we depend on for nutrition. 1ne could argue that breeding and
genetic engineering are not essential, but I cant think of any place on @arth that
does not rely on crops that have been bred for improved characteristics. /ome will
argue that we should simply stick with standard breeding because so far, the
negative conse3uences have been minimal. /omehow this argument discounts the
thousands of deaths or poisoning each year from pesticide e4posure and the crop
losses that have led to starvation. As far as we know, there have been no negative
conse3uences associated with genetic engineering. 2he probability of e4posure to a
possible hazard is 3uite low for +@ crops, because of the additional regulatory
re3uirements. 2hese are some of the reasons that $oepeik ranks +@ foods as low
risk %$opeik and +ray 7887(. 1ne hour later I pull myself out of the water feeling
re<uvenated, young again, and as if I have all the time in the world.