What biotechnology issues resonate with students?

Written by Brittany Anderton

*Source: Portal Educativo. Image slightly modified.*

Biotechnology is poised to become one of the most valuable scientific revolutions of the 21^st century. Because the field is developing so quickly, the gap between expert and non-expert knowledge is increasing at a time when societal decisions about it are becoming more and more important. So how do we promote biotechnology literacy in the classroom? What should non-experts know about genetic technologies in order to make informed decisions? I conducted a study to answer these questions, and here is what I found.
Even though scientific knowledge is an important part of science literacy, how people feel about a technology – their general positive or negative attitudes – also plays a role in their decision-making. In fact, there’s evidence that attitudes play a greater role than knowledge in determining students’ behavior toward biotechnology. I set out to understand what issues undergraduate students draw upon when they reason about genetic technologies. I also wanted to know whether classroom dialogue about biotechnology influences their attitudes and understanding. This information can provide a window into the conceptual frameworks that students use to make decisions about genetic technologies, and can help educators and communicators develop specific strategies for connecting with their audiences.

Students discuss biotechnology

Twenty years ago, my postdoctoral mentor Pamela Ronald launched an innovative course designed for non-science majors at UC Davis. Genetics and Society engages students in the science, politics, social issues, ethics, and economics surrounding biotechnology. It remains popular today. Recognizing the importance of dialogue around this complex topic, Pam introduced “discussion sections” into the course. During the discussion sections, students engage in rational discourse about a biotechnology issue – for example, whether or not all food containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients should be labeled as “GMO”. The discussion sections provide an opportunity for students to share their thoughts and consider the many facets involved in decision-making about biotechnology. Scientific arguments used in the class are required to be evidence-based, and students are graded on the credibility of their sources. While students in Genetics and Society generally enjoy these peer-to-peer discussions, no one had looked closely at how they influence their understanding and attitudes about genetic technologies.
At the beginning of the course, I asked the students to state their attitudes on seven different biotechnology applications. Three topics related to food: whether or not we should label GMOs, whether GE of plants should be prohibited, and whether GE of animals should be prohibited. I also asked the students to justify their attitude for each topic. At the end of each weekly discussion section, during which a group of students presented on an individual application/topic, I collected this information a second time from the students in the audience. These pre-post attitudes with corresponding reasoning provided the data for my study.

**Figure 1**. Student attitudes significantly changed for three topics following classroom dialogue. Source: Anderton & Ronald, *Journal of Biological Education*, 2017.

I started by looking for significant changes in students’ attitudes following the discussion sections. I found significant changes for three topics: GMO labeling, GE of animals, and the FDA ban on 23andme’s health reports* (Figure 1). Because the students did not appear to have familiarity with the 23andme ban at the beginning of the course, I didn’t select that topic for further analysis. In the end, I selected GMO labeling and GE of animals, as well as two topics for which I didn’t observe significant attitude changes (DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing research) for further analysis. Pam and I reasoned that it was important to take a close look at student reasoning in the presence and absence of attitude changes, because learning can happen even if a person doesn’t change their mind.

Analyzing the themes

Using the justifications given by the students for their attitudes on the four topics selected above – GMO labeling, GE of animals, DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing – I performed an approach called thematic analysis, in which I looked for overarching patterns or themes that were prevalent in students’ reasoning about biotechnology. Through an iterative process, I identified seven major themes that students drew upon in their justifications (Figure 2). I also tallied the number of times I detected a change in the use of a theme following a given discussion section (i.e., whenever a student adopted new reasoning or abandoned prior reasoning following a discussion section).

**Figure 2**. Seven overarching themes related to student reasoning about biotechnology. Source: Anderton & Ronald, *Journal of Biological Education*, 2017.

Our preliminary evidence suggests that the discussion sections – and perhaps classroom discourse in particular – provide students with a more nuanced understanding of biotechnology. For example, students generally increased their use of “Middle Way” reasoning following the discussion sections. This suggests that they developed a greater appreciation of regulations that consider biotechnology applications on a case-by-case basis. We also observed increased use of the Economic theme following the two discussion sections for which students had significant attitude changes. It is possible that the economic considerations of genetic technologies can sway people’s attitudes, but this remains to be proven.
Scientific decision-making involves more than just facts. By better understanding the complex processes that take place when students learn and make decisions about genetic technologies – like we did in this study – educators can connect with their audiences and promote biotechnology literacy. A more informed and nuanced discussion will help our society determine the best ways to use biotechnology and to direct our focus as it continues to evolve.

To access the full version of the manuscript, Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology, please go to: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599.
Please address any questions or comments to Brittany Anderton at bnanderton@udavis.edu.

*The FDA banned 23andme genetic health reports in November 2013, citing concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of such information to consumers. In October 2015 the ban was lifted, and 23andme resumed offering carrier-status testing, though no longer offers testing for health conditions such as cancer and heart disease.

Written by Guest Expert

Brittany Anderton seeks to improve the intersection of science and society by educating the next generation of responsible scientists and citizens. She has a PhD in cancer biology, studied the teaching and communication of biotechnology as a postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis, and is now the Associate Director of Research Talks at iBiology and Lecturer at CSU Sacramento.

Senate passes GMO labeling compromise bill

Stabenow-S764 — Debbie Stabenow discusses the different labeling options under S. 764 while introducing the bill

On Thursday, July 7th, the US Senate passed a bill that would set a national labeling standard for foods containing genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients. Introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) the previous day, S. 764 is a compromise bill that resulted from negotiations between Stabenow and Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KY), which had already drawn heated debate between partisans of this issue. At the end of the first day, the Senate voted 65-32 for cloture on the GMO labeling bill, thereby limiting debate and discussion of amendments. On Thursday, the bill passed with 63 votes in favor, and 30 votes against. If a similar bill is passed in the House of Representatives, this standard could become law in the United States.
Since the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the question of labeling them in stores has been a contentious political issue, but one that did not often rise to national consciousness. Several waves of ballot measures had been attempted by proponents of labeling such as California Proposition 37 – but every one of them rejected by voters. Some of the smaller, northeastern states of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine passed mandatory labeling laws through their legislatures, as part of a multi-state approach taken by advocates (map). All but one of these states had a conditional clause stating that a certain number of nearby states with large populations must also have GMO labeling laws for theirs to take effect. Vermont is the only state that has a labeling law without such provisions, and it went into effect on July 1 this year. Some companies have already added labels to their packages. (Read our story about some of the initial effects of this law on food availability in Vermont here.)
Some lawmakers, looking to avoid some of the costly and problematic effects of a single state mandating special labels on foods sold within the state or a potential state-by-state patchwork sought to propose laws that would pre-empt state labeling mandates and replace them with a single federal standard. One such bill, proposed by Senator Roberts, would have put the USDA in charge of creating a voluntary labeling standard, (which is discussed in detail here) but failed to pass. Other senators, such as Jeff Merkley (D-OR) proposed a mandatory GMO labeling scheme that was more stringent, which also failed to gain support. Senators Stabenow and Roberts together negotiated a compromise bill that became the one introduced Wednesday, and passed Thursday.
The bill institutes a national mandatory labeling standard for foods that contain genetically engineered crops, with several options for how food manufacturers can label their products. They can use plain language on the package, a website url, phone number, or QR code that leads to disclosure about GMO content, or a symbol that would be created by the USDA after a 2-year process. The bill also grants authority to the USDA to determine the accessibility of the QR code based approach as well as some of the bills exemptions. “Very small” companies do not have to disclose this information, and ingredients that do not contain genetic material from the crops they were derived from are also exempt. Even with these exemptions, compared to the Vermont law it replaces this results in thousands of additional products that would be covered.

Sanders-S764 — Bernie Sanders opposed S. 764 and advocated for making the Vermont law the national standard

Upon introduction into the Senate, Senator Stabenow emphasized that there was no scientific controversy over the safety of growing and eating genetically modified foods. The Vermont label law H.112 actually contains language stating that “There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods” as justification for enacting the law. While Stabenow was still giving her presentation introducing the new bill, A small group of senators including Bernie Sanders (I-VT) held a concurrent press conference voicing their opposition to the bill and re-emphasizing issues such as safety and their concerns about corporate power. The debate continued through the following day, and viewers reported that Senator Sanders chastised the Senate for not inviting “all voices” to testify in the Senate about GMO safety, and that Senator Stabenow dismissed popular conspiracy theories about GMOs, citing the recent National Academy of Sciences report on the subject.
In the final vote tally, among the 63 yea votes were 41 Republicans and 22 Democrats, indicating strong bipartisan support. Since this bill differs too much from HR 1599, the Safe And Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 which spelled out a voluntary GMO labeling program, there will need to be a new bill passed in the House of Representatives before this bill can be brought before the President to become law. In the meantime, the contentious debate about whether and what kind of labeling there may be for genetically engineered foods in the United States is sure to continue.

S764-vote-400 — The final vote tally for S. 764

Videos

C-SPAN2 Day 1 Part 1: Introduction of S. 764 to Senate
C-SPAN2 Day 1 Part 2: Advancement of S. 764
Youtube Live: Press conference of senators opposed to S. 764
C-SPAN2 Day 2: Debate and final voting on S. 764

Is HR 1599 the SAFE Act or the DARK Act?

The SAFE act (Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act) or HR 1599 seeks to regulate labeling of GMOs. It recently passed the House and is currently in the Senate. In this post, I’d like to explore the highlights of the bill and outline my thoughts on why some organizations are opposing it. Continue reading “Is HR 1599 the SAFE Act or the DARK Act?” →

The inconvenient truth about GMO labeling

Over the past few months, there have been several big stories on the labeling of GMOs: Chipotle, a chain of restaurants popular in the United States declared that they were going to eliminate GMOs from their menu. A perhaps more interesting story is that the USDA stated that they would start providing a verification program for companies whose products are non-GMO.

In writing and researching GMO labeling bills proposed in different states and nations as well as looking into companies that have decided to take the non-GMO plunge, the one factor that stands out more than any other is what each of these entities choose to define as “GMO”. I use the word “choose”, because that’s what it boils down to. There’s no single definition on what is or is not a GMO, so companies and legislators get to decide how to define it. From a molecular biology perspective, a transgenic animal or crop is one where a gene from an unrelated species is added to another. But the term “GMO” as used in the current debate doesn’t have a clear definition.

For example, is milk derived from a cow that is fed GM-grain a GMO? According to the Non-GMO Project, an organization that certifies ingredients as non-GMO, milk from a cow fed GM-grain cannot be certified as non-GMO. GMO Inside, one of the organizations leading efforts to label, also abides by this definition. The USDA’s Organic label also adheres to these standards. The Food Babe used the same criteria in her campaign against “Monsanto Milk” in Starbucks beverages. However, Ben & Jerry’s, an ice cream company and one of the first large organizations to declare that it was going GMO-free and supports labeling, sources its milk from cows fed GM-grain. Ben & Jerry’s website explains their criteria for GMOs by stating “if you eat a corn chip containing GMO corn, it doesn’t make you a genetically modified human.”

Sucrose from any source tastes just as sweet

What about sugar that is derived from a GM-beet? As Dr Kevin Folta outlines in this graphic, sugar is sugar. There’s no protein and no DNA in what we buy at the store. As such, it cannot be distinguished from sugar derived from non-GM beet. To obtain Non-GMO Project certification, this is resolved by looking at the supply chain (see bullet 2.6.1.1.4). But Australia and New Zealand labeling standards define a GM-ingredient as one that contains novel DNA or protein, so sugar from GM-beet would be exempt from labeling.

The definition even changes from one state to the next. In Vermont, the labeling bill states that you don’t need to label if the amount of GM material makes up less than 0.9% of the total weight of processed food, but in California‘s proposed (and failed) bill the cutoff was set at 0.5%. Perhaps GMOs have more GMOiness in California so the state can’t handle as much of it. Colorado’s proposed (and failed) bill stated that chewing gum was exempt from labeling. In Colorado, Vermont, and California, alcoholic beverages were exempt, but I could find no such exemption in the bill from Connecticut.

Some may argue that it’s better that we just start somewhere. Anywhere. They will argue that any form of labeling is better than none. But the immediate consequence of a labeling bill that does not meet everyone’s requirements is the fact that the number of labels and verification-criteria will explode. Certifiers will try to sell consumers on the purity of their criteria and benefits of their definition of a GMO. Here’s an example: as you may know, the USDA’s organic label excludes GMOs and is often used by those who wish to avoid GMOs in their diet. However, according to GMO-awareness.com, the USDA’s organic label isn’t stringent enough because there are a handful of exemptions, so the organization embraces the Non-GMO Verified seal.

Personally, I like Australia and New Zealand’s criteria. The difference between a GMO and a non-GMO crop is the DNA for the gene that has been added and the protein(s) that it produces. So if the very thing that make a crop a GMO cannot be detected in a food product, then it shouldn’t be labeled. Australia and New Zealand extend their labeling criteria to foods that are designed to be different from their non-GMO counterparts, such as high oleic soy or the Innate potato: these must be labeled as genetically engineered.

But that’s my personal opinion, and it probably would not meet the demands of most GMO-labeling proponents. Since there’s no hard rule each person can have their own criteria, which will probably lead to a bureaucratic nightmare where lobbying groups for different foods and ingredients will argue as to why their product should or should not qualify as a GMO. And who’s to say they’re wrong?Here’s a list of common ingredients whose classification as “GMO” is debatable:

Here’s a list of common ingredients whose classification as “GMO” is debatable:

Vitamin and nutritional additives produced through genetic engineering, commonly used in fortified foods. Vitamin C, for example, can be made through fermentation of corn (which could be a GMO). Riboflavin can be synthesized by a GM-bacteria.
Oils, sugars, and starches, which have no trace of protein or DNA
Animal products from animals fed GMO grain (i.e. eggs, milk, meat, etc).
Animal products from animals who have received GE vaccines
Cheese, yogurt, and other dairy products whose production may use GE bacteria

110 car trains combine grain from many farms. The commodity food system for grains makes 0.0% admixture unachievable.

There’s also the all important topic of “cut-off”. How much GMO is acceptable in a product? Some would argue that it should be 0.0%, but that’s not realistic considering the fact that equipment is often shared in the supply chain. How do we decide whether it is 0.5% (California’s criteria) or 0.9% (Vermont’s criteria) that makes a food item a GMO? There’s no scientific answer, so again, it will have to be decided via politics and lobbying.

I don’t have an answer here, and I write this only to highlight the many nuances that are perhaps ignored, and the bureaucratic disaster that a poorly designed federal, or worse yet state-level, labeling bill could turn into. Feel free to comment on what ingredients you think should be labeled in a federal voluntary or mandatory labeling law.

Food and Farm interview about Cheerios and GMOs

I imagine that by now you’ve heard about the announcement from General Mills that they have removed genetically engineered ingredients from their original Cheerios cereal, while also leaving them in their other Cheerios products. (The sourcing of their sugar and corn starch ingredients is all that has changed.) The discussion in traditional and social media has both argued that this is a huge deal, or not a big deal, depending on who you ask. While making the switch, General Mills also affirmed the safety of GMOs, even buying google ad space to make this information easy to find.
The Food and Farm Show is a web radio and podcast, and host Ray Bowman posted an interview with me today where we try to make some sense of the news and the various contradictions that seem to come up. Is this a bellwether of products switching away from GMOs, or companies defending their use of them? Does it demonstrate the need for mandatory GMO labels or demonstrate the market meeting that need on its own? Ray and I try to make some sense of the news, and maybe talk a little about the art and imagery people use to discuss genetically engineered foods.

Initative I-522 fails to pass, what’s next?

BYbEtYZCYAABkZu — Heat map of election night results, by Bill Price. Blue = Yes, Red = No.

Washington Initiative 522, which proposed mandatory front-of-package labels for foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients, or GMOs, came out of election night trailing by about 9 percentage points, with some predicting that the measure failed, while some proponents held out, saying that the election was too close to call. Washington State is a mail-in voting state, and there are at the time of this article still over 300,000 votes that remain to be counted. Mercola.com announced victory prematurely, but the Biofortified Blog predicts that the initiative will fail to pass by about 47.7% Yes to 52.3% No, a 4.7% margin overall.
This calculation was based on multiplying the vote percentages for each county by the remaining votes in each county. While I-522 is projected to gain about 3,000 votes more for Yes than No votes and a few percentage points, it may still end at about 80,000 votes short of passing. This estimate was based on the numbers that were publicly available as of 9 pm Pacific Time, and the calculations can be seen here. Additional votes may be accepted if they were postmarked by November 5, but it is unlikely that these votes will differ significantly from the current trend. Continue reading →

Labeling. What is Kosher for a food community?

Philosophical food restrictions were not something I grew up with. Well, there was the “Fish on Friday” thing, but I was never really able to understand why fish wasn’t a dead animal too. (I have a long history of aversion to dogma, which didn’t serve me well in Catholic school, as I would say things like that out loud. To nuns.) And my dad didn’t like fish so we actually just got a cheese pizza on Friday nights and that was the end of that.

Is this Kosher? Image by Julie via Flickr.

That said, I think it’s fine for people to develop philosophies, rituals, and rules about what to eat for themselves. Pizza night was comforting and tasty. But just because my family liked pizza on Friday nights, I would never expect other families to feel the need to adhere to our little tradition and abandon their fish fry. Many cultures and religions have developed rules and rituals about food and food ingredients. Among the best known of these are the Kosher and Halal types of religious food permissions and restrictions. But many others exist as well.
I became more interested in understanding the Kosher system as the GMO food labeling debate has played out. I knew that the Kosher system had been successful, and apparently sustainable, and it was not established or maintained by the government. It seemed to be a suitable model for the philosophical objection to the GMO process that people have. Although some scientists and other science-minded folks lean towards other types of label systems, including more science-based and educational strategies that I wouldn’t necessarily reject, I still think that philosophical labeling should be handled with Kosher as the model system. Continue reading →

How To Do GMO Food Labeling Right

Written by Steve Savage

A Modest Proposal

Should food with ingredients from genetically engineered crops – “GMOs” – be labeled? Many argue that consumers have a “right to know” about this. Ok, if the real reason for labeling is to provide consumers with knowledge, then the label should read:
“Contains ingredients from biotech enhanced crops approved by the USDA, FDA and EPA”
That would tell people what is unique about these crops. Humans have been genetically modifying crops for centuries using a variety of methods. The difference for genetically engineered crops is that they must be fully characterized and tested in order to gain approval from three different regulatory agencies – the USDA, the EPA and the FDA (there is a description of this process below if you are interested). Crops modified in other ways including those generated by conventional breeding, mutation breeding or “wide crosses” or hybrids or doubled haploids don’t have to be tested or approved at all. The clear, international scientific consensus is that genetic engineering involves no unusual risk relative to all the other methods of genetic modification, but this testing was instituted out of an abundance of caution. Thus, any label should let consumers know about this extra level of scrutiny conducted for their benefit. Continue reading “How To Do GMO Food Labeling Right” →

Connecticut passes GMO labeling law… sort of

Written by Caroline Coatney

A GMO labeling bill, House Bill 6527, was just recently passed by both houses in the Connecticut state legislature. The bipartisan bill had strong support from state legislators (voted 134-3 in the House and 34-0 in the Senate). The most current version of the new act can be found here.
The new law is being heralded by some as a significant victory for the GMO labeling movement since Connecticut will be the first state in the nation to require GMO labeling. Senate President Donald E. Williams (D-Brooklyn), who was not a sponsor of the bill, commented on one of the reasons for why the law was enacted, saying, “This bipartisan agreement means that Connecticut families have all the information they need to make informed, healthy choices when feeding their families… There is mounting scientific evidence showing genetically modified foods are harmful to our health” (from a press release issued June 1 2013 from the Governor’s Office).
Putting the reasons for enacting the law aside, there are a few interesting points to consider about Connecticut’s new statute: Continue reading “Connecticut passes GMO labeling law… sort of” →

Analysis of Washington State GMO Labeling Initiative I-522

Written by Bill Price

Background
Recently, supporters of the Washington State initiative I-522 submitted signatures to the Secretary of the State of Washington. This initiative is designed to “establish mandatory labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering”. The official web site for the initiative support effort can be found at: ( labelitwa.org [EDIT 3/2/2013: Initiative supporters have put up a new WEB site at Yes on I522]) and the initiative text can be found at: (I-522 Text ). The author of I-522, Chris McManus (Chris McManus), is an advertising executive from Tacoma, Washington. When asked about technical details of the initiative, he reportedly replied “Well, you know, I’m not a scientist. I work in media. Those kinds of questions I’ll have to defer to later in the campaign.” (McManus Quote ). One would think that addressing such issues might be an important consideration before signing the petition, however, the process has now moved beyond that point.
The effort has strong support from the organic community, with the initiative itself having several sections devoted specifically to the promotion of organic production methods as well as the backing of large organic business and consumer interests such as Whole Foods Market Inc. (Wikipedia: Whole Foods Market & wholefoodsmarket.com ), PCC Natural Markets, the largest certified organic coop in United States, (Wikipedia: PCC Natural Markets & pccnaturalmarkets.com), and the non-profit advocacy group, The Organic Consumers Association (Wikipedia: Organic Consumers Association & organicconsumers.org ). Several other smaller businesses with interests in organic production have also committed to supporting the measure (see for example Labelitwa Supporters ).
Much of the initiative text is taken, sometimes verbatim, from the earlier 2012 initiative process in California, Proposition 37 . While the similarity of the two initiatives is substantial, there are important differences. Proposition 37, for example, contained language intended to regulate the use of the term “natural”. That component of Proposition 37 was highly contentious and was possibly its weakest legal aspect (Legal Analysis of Proposition 37 ). Such language has been dropped from I-522. While the similarities of the Washington State initiative text may present many of the same legal issues already raised by Proposition 37, I-522 has its own unique language, which may initiate other challenges. The similarities and differences of these proposals will be addressed as they occur below. Continue reading “Analysis of Washington State GMO Labeling Initiative I-522” →