This month I am wrapping up a course I taught for the first time entitled Human Nutrition in Evolutionary Perspective.  A few weeks ago we focused on food technology in industrialized societies with a discussion on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  I’m happy to report that students demonstrated extreme passion for the subject as well as most topics covered in the course.  I’m concerned, though, that the passion may be driven by unexamined or potentially unsubstantiated claims.  Is it possible that for once students are outraged and I’m trying to squelch it?  What I hoped to convey in my class was that issues surrounding GMOs are complicated and while I am far from an expert on the technology or the controversy, there are a few things I deem pertinent to the discussion.

Are Transgenic Foods Unnatural?

First, is the biology.  While we are often told that the development of transgenic organisms transcends Mendelian genetics and hybridization, it is worth noting that similar processes certainly do occur in nature as well as other human innovations.  As Mark Bittman, food columnist for the New York Times says, “The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field­–self included–understand much of anything about gene altering.” Why would anyone when popular media fails to present the science or flat out states that transgenic organisms are unnatural?  Using terms like “Frankenfoods” does little to decrypt the materials and methods involved and likely perpetuates a fear and distrust of science in general.  To be fair we are still learning about the array of organisms able to add genetic material into another organisms’ genome.  However, genetic modification takes place naturally among wild plants and our own genome is made up in part of viral DNA passed on through our evolutionary history.  Human induced gene therapy is a similar procedure albeit for a different application. I’m not suggesting this is an argument in favor of GMOs; in fact other concepts in biology, like pleiotropy, point to potential risks of GMOs and should also be a part of the conversation.  Merely, the science itself is worth considering as we build a framework for evaluating GMOs.  Unfortunately, students in my classroom were less than inspired by this.

GMO Regulation or lack Thereof

What does get them fired up is how GMOs are used and who owns them.  Most students are surprised to learn that there are patents on plant and animal life.  They are also stunned to find that these are often in the hands of relatively few companies with obvious government ties, for example that Michael Taylor, the F.D.A.  Deputy Commissioner for Foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. And that these foods are not currently labeled here in the United States for reasons they wittingly suspect are based on the fact they won’t sell. And it is this that leads to a consensus that GMOs are evil.  That’s all they need to know.

GMOs might well be deplorable.  But rather than fall prey to our own criticisms of intolerance perhaps we should first ask if it’s the technology or the corporatization of agriculture (or both) that’s the problem?

I have conversed with my colleagues many times on the general apathy on campus regarding such important issues affecting each of our lives.  But passion without critical thinking is akin to Intelligent Design proponents dismissing evolution on the basis that God simply exists.  What I witnessed in the classroom was inquiry replaced by fervent dismissal.  Bioanthropology has much to contribute to the discussion of food technology but it’s not my job to sway opinions. My own opinion on the matter is that genetic engineering in lieu of better systems of distribution and reduction of waste doesn’t make sense.  But I don’t start the class by saying this; I try to get students to deconstruct and make choices from a solid foundation of existing research.  This time something went awry.

Misty A. Weitzel is an assistant professor at Western Oregon U, specializing in bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology.  She has worked in the US, Canada, Siberia, and currently in Cyprus.  She has published on taphonomy and human decomposition, Siberian bioarchaeology, analysis of burned human remains and pedagogical methods.

GMOs might well be deplorable.  But rather than fall prey to our own criticisms of intolerance perhaps we should first ask if it’s the technology or the corporatization of agriculture (or both) that’s the problem?