Slides used for an educational event related to The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The event was held at the Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks, California on March 23, 2012.

1. The Science of Genetically Engineering Plants
As it Relates to:
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food
Act
March 23, 2012
Rudolf Steiner College

2. THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD
ACT
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
(a) California consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase
were produced using genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences.
Manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The
results are not always predictable or controllable, and they can lead to adverse
health or environmental consequences.

3. The Imprecision of Plant Genetic Engineering
• Currently, inserting genes into plants using genetic engineering is not only
imprecise but also mutagenic
• The manipulated genes that are inserted into GE plants can also result in
unintended consequences
(e.g. StarLinkTM corn, Bt176)
• Unintended consequences that affect e.g. allergenicity (StarLinkTM corn) or
toxin levels (Bt176) could lead to adverse health or environmental
consequences

4. THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD
ACT
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
(b) Government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of DNA into
plants, a technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of
significant problems with plant foods.
Such genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods
and introduce new toxicants and health concerns.

5. It is Possible for Genetic Engineering
as well as Traditional Breeding
to Adversely Affect Toxin Levels in Plants
• Glycoalkaloids in potatoes and tomatoes for example
• Only reported case of increased glycoalkaloids in a commercialized potato
variety was the result of traditional breeding

6. THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD
ACT
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
(d) No federal or California law requires that food producers identify whether
foods were produced using genetic engineering.
At the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require
safety studies of such foods.
Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the FDA does not even require
developers of genetically engineered crops to consult with the agency.

7. FDA Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods Needs to be
Improved
• FDA regulation is not currently required for a GE food unless…
• The engineered gene originated in an organism known to be allergenic to
humans OR
• The food has increased levels of a known toxicant or decreased levels of a
known nutrient OR
• The food is substantially different than what consumers would expect for
that food (e.g. oil fatty acid composition)

8. All Regulation of Commercialized
Genetically Engineered Products
Needs to be Improved
• The commercial products of this powerful technology should be regulated
on a case-by-case basis
• It is currently possible to develop a GE product that can avoid any
regulation by FDA, USDA or EPA
• A precedent worth revisiting: The Flavr SavrTM tomato and regulation of
GE proteins as food additives

9. THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD
ACT
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
(h) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can also cause serious
impacts to the environment. For example, most genetically engineered
crops are designed to withstand weed-killing pesticides known as
herbicides. As a result, hundreds of millions of pounds of additional
herbicides have been used on U.S. farms.
Because of the massive use of such products, herbicide-resistant weeds have
flourished—a problem that has resulted, in turn, in the use of increasingly
toxic herbicides. These toxic herbicides damage our agricultural areas,
impair our drinking water, and pose health risks to farm workers and
consumers. California consumers should have the choice to avoid
purchasing foods production of which can lead to such environmental
harm.

10. Serious Impacts to the Environment can be Positive or Negative
Negative Impacts Positive Impacts
• Herbicide-resistant weeds • No-till farming
• Pesticide-resistant insects (corn • Organic farmers use Bt (Rachel
root worm) Carson promoted it in Silent
Spring)
• Drugs and chemicals produced in
GE crops (including corn and rice)
• Possible harm to non-target
organisms
(Bt176 and monarch butterfly
larvae)

11. Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Regulated and
Labeled
• There is U.S. precedent for it: the world’s first GE whole food, the Flavr
SavrTM tomato, was regulated by the FDA and labeled by Calgene, the
company that developed it
• For scientific reasons, especially in light of the current regulatory system,
but also…
• Because that’s how capitalism is supposed to work
(a company that believes in its products should label them as Calgene did
with the Flavr SavrTM tomato)
• Because that’s how democracy is supposed to work (NB: USDA COOL
labeling)

12. World’s First Genetically Engineered Whole Food
MacGregor’sR Tomatoes Grown from Flavr SavrTM Seeds were
accompanied by tomato-shaped brochures like this one

13. “Grown From Genetically Modified Seeds”
Right on the Sticker

14. Use of antibiotic-resistance protein explained
Gene isolated from E. coli conferred resistance to the antibiotic
kanamycin

15. 1-800-34TOMATO in the accompanying brochure
For consumers who wanted even more information