What You Need to Know About GMOs 2.

0 and the
Future of Our Food
Food and Health Food Politics

September 29, 2016

Food Revolution Summit speaker Dr. Michael Hansen is one of the worlds foremost scientific
authorities on GMOs. He is a Senior Staff Scientist with Consumers Union (the publisher of
Consumer Reports), and has served on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural
Biotechnology, and on the California Department of Food and Agriculture Food Biotechnology
Advisory Committee. There are many new and important developments in the world of GMOs,
and recently, U.S. Right To Know co-director Stacy Malkan asked Dr. Hansen about whats
going on now, and why it matters.
By Stacy Malkan Published by U.S. Right to Know
Silenced genes, edited genes, algae engineered to produce compounds that taste like food: new
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) made with these experimental techniques are making
their way to your dinner plate. Its the next wave of genetic engineering, or GMOs 2.0.
Will we know if theyre in our food?

The new GMO labeling law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama has
been widelypanned by consumer groups because it allows companies to use QR codes or 800
numbers in place of plain English on labels.
But even worse news for our right to know whats in our food: vague wording in the new law
opens the door for industry pressure on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to exempt many
possibly even most GMOs from labeling at all.
To learn more about GMOs 2.0 and whether these foods will be labeled, I spoke with Michael
Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union.

Q: GMOs have been in our food for over 20 years but they have recently
been changing. Can you describe whats new?
MH: Whats new is they are using different methods to cut and change specific gene sequences.
There are two basic types: gene silencing techniques such as RNA interference (RNAi) that can
turn particular genes off; and gene editing techniques such as CRISPR, TALEN or zinc fingered
nucleuses used to cut DNA in order to make small genetic changes or insert genetic material.
These methods are more precise than the old methods, but there can still be off-target and
unintended effects. When you alter the genetics of living things they dont always behave as you
expect. This is why its crucial to thoroughly study health and environmental impacts, but these
studies arent required.
Also, just because the techniques are different doesnt mean the traits will be. The old method of
genetic engineering was used mostly to make plants resist herbicides, and increase sales of
herbicides. The new gene editing techniques will probably be used in much the same way, but
there are some new twists.

Q: What GMO 2.0 foods are on the market now?

MH: Non-browning GMO apples are growing in fields now and may be in stores next year. A
GMO potato is in stores now but we dont know where. The potato was engineered with RNAi to
not turn brown on exposure to air and to produce lower levels of acrylamide (a carcinogen) when
fried or baked.
Canola genetically engineered with CRISPR to tolerate herbicides may already be in canola oils.
Synthetic biology vanilla flavor and stevia are also in products these were produced using
genetically engineered yeast and they may even be marketed as natural.
Companies are not telling consumers these products are GMO; instead they are using terms like
fermentation derived to describe ingredients made with synthetic biology. When you see that
term on products, or a non-browning apple or potato, assume that means genetically
engineered.

Q: Congress just passed a GMO labeling law, but the language is written
in a way that could be interpreted to exempt many GMO foods from
labeling. Can you explain the problem?
MH: The first problem is that the law says genetically engineered DNA must be present. That
means the law exempts highly processed foods such as high fructose corn syrup, GMO beet
sugar, purified oils and some engineered artificial flavors and spices because the identifiable
engineered DNA is degraded or removed. Whole classes of soft drinks wont be labeled even if
they contain high levels of genetically engineered corn syrup. Nothing can be done about that
now.
The second problem we can do something about. The law exempts foods if the genetic
modification could otherwise be achieved via conventional breeding or found in nature. It all
comes down to how the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines modification. It could be
defined in a way that includes nothing, though hopefully that wont happen because there would
be such an uproar.

Modification should be defined as specific genetic sequences that are altered. If USDA defines it
that way, these new GMO 2.0 techniques should be covered. But that is going to be a huge fight
and it could end up that a lot of GMO foods fall through the cracks and dont have to be labeled.
On the plus side, USDA has decided that meat, poultry and eggs can be labeled as non-GMO if
they come from animals that are not fed with genetically engineered foods, and they leave it up
to an independent third-party standard. We need to make sure that standard is created in an open
transparent manner and consistent with international standards.
The next step is that consumer groups need to flood the USDA with comments. USDA
is accepting public comments until Oct. 23 and Consumers Union will be posting our comments
soon to help inform others of the issues at stake.

Q: Is genetic engineering the future of our food?

MH: No I dont think so. When you look at the

millennial generation, there is a sea change in how people view food. Previously people asked if
it was cheap. Now there is a huge interest in how food is produced and where it comes from.
People are trying to get food as fresh and natural as possible. They want food grown more
sustainably, more locally and in less industrialized conditions.

This is why we see so many companies announcing they are getting rid of antibiotics, artificial
colors and ingredients, GMOs and other foods produced in industrialized conditions. Thats why
these new GMO technologies may not have a great future; most of them are designed for
industrial food systems.
There is global agreement in the World Agriculture Report that industrial agriculture and genetic
engineering are not the answer for the future of food. The answer is ecologically rational farming
systems.
Biotechnology by its very nature is focusing on one or a few genes or specific traits whereas
truly ecological agriculture is focused on whole systems. Thats the direction consumers want
and where we need to go for health and sustainability.
But ecological agriculture is not something that corporations can easily monetize, and not
something they can patent and own. Companies are pushing GMOs because of the profit margin.

Q: What, in your view, is the responsible path forward for genetic

engineering?
MH: Along with hundreds of other scientists and academics, I signed the statement No
scientific consensus on GMO safety, which describes the problems with current regulatory and
scientific methods. Our view is that decisions about whether to continue or expand genetically
engineered crops and foods should be supported by strong scientific evidence of the long-term
safety for human and animal health and the environment, which is obtained in a manner that is
honest, ethical, rigorous, independent and transparent.

Q: Given the uncertain state of labeling, what can people do to avoid

genetically engineered foods?
MH: Choose organic food or products certified by the Non GMO Project, which has verified tens
of thousands of foods that dont contain GMOs or synthetic biology ingredients.