A number of years ago I clipped a cartoon from the monthly newsletter published by PCC Natural Markets, the Seattle-based food retailer, and posted it on my bulletin board here at work. The single-panel image depicts a mock store circular touting the week's Genetically Modified Specials. Ibuprofen Tomatoes are 89 cents a pound; “New!” multivitamin lamb shank is $4.79 a pound; genome-specific salad dressing (“Pick the dressing that matches your DNA!”) is 89 cents a bottle; and something called HamCheese (“The multi-purpose cold cut”) is $2.99 a pound.
It was simply humorous at the time, good for a chuckle. Caffeinated oranges?! Yeah, right.
Now, I'm not laughing. The food industry is moving into truly uncharted territory. Over the summer, the Food and Drug Administration approved products made from the offspring of cloned animals. Just this month, it gave a preliminary blessing to the consumption of genetically modified farm animals.
That's Science 2, Nature 0. In the quest to solve the world's food supply issues, some parts of our society, including the government, seem to be favoring science and technology. At the opposite end of the spectrum, consumers stand vigorous in their support of natural and organic, local-grown and artisan food products, as well as the practices that bring them all to market.
It's worth noting that a number of lesser technologies already are in stores, with varying degrees of consumer acceptance. One of the most visible is irradiation. Some produce (most recently spinach and lettuce) and ground beef are irradiated to kill pathogens. And, let's remember that there's plenty of GM corn and soy in the food supply, some of it going into chips and cereal and other processed foods eaten every day by millions of seemingly unconcerned people.
Why is the outcry muted here? In the case of GM crops, some observers believe consumer awareness is diluted because the modified wheat and soy is added at the ingredient level, far back in the production process. In the latter instance, concerns over food safety trump whatever reservations consumers harbor about zapping food with particle beams. It's when you talk about changing the thing itself — be it a chicken breast or hamburger meat — that science hits a bit too close to home.
If GM animals, cloned proteins or nano-enhanced supplements are to join the organic broccoli and local corn on the American countertop, there needs to be a compelling reason for them. Right now, it's fair to say that food technology is tolerated; acceptance is limited to specific areas.
Supermarket retailing has so far sided with their shoppers and rejected much of what's on the FDA's table. For now, the cartoon can stay tacked up above my desk, an exercise in exaggerated reality, confined to words and images on paper.
