Synthetic Biology: Rebranding Extreme Genetic Engineering

Some years ago, bread companies got the word that customers wanted more fiber in their bread. Instead of making more of their bread with whole grains, a few companies actually put in wood pulp and labeled it as "fiber".

May 5, 2014 | Source: Center for Food Safety | by Jaydee Hanson

For Related Articles and More Information, Please Visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering Page and our Millions Against Monsanto Page.

Some years ago, bread companies got the word that customers wanted more fiber in their bread. Instead of making more of their bread with whole grains, a few companies actually put in wood pulp and labeled it as “fiber”. Today, in San Francisco, a group of synthetic biology companies and a representative from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are holding a meeting called the
SynBioBeta Cultured Food Forum
about how to market foods and food additives made from extreme forms of genetic engineering as “natural” and “sustainable.”

Whenever you read or hear the term synthetic biology, remember that it is a euphemism for extreme genetic engineering.  This supposedly new technology is really just a similar but more extreme form of the genetic engineering of bacteria, plants and animals that has been going on for the last three decades or more.  Because it is an extreme form of genetic engineering, it should not be subject to more, not less regulation. It is the exact reverse of natural.

If these companies want to produce their products using extreme genetic engineering they should label their products as such and not try to pass them off as “natural” or “sustainable.” I have met many of these genetic engineers in their labs and talked with them about their products. They are good at engineering living organisms, mostly yeasts, bacteria, and algae, so far, but most of them seem to have missed the basic courses in ecology.  Moreover, many of them have contempt for the messiness of nature and think that their genetically engineered products can improve on nature. One of them recently tweeted, “Real nature is not green. Rather, it is beyond control.”

These companies are proud of their products and rather than trying to disguise them as “natural,” should market them as the new genetically engineered products that they are. The companies present at today’s forum represent many of the key players in the field. Evolva is planning to market its synthetic biology version of vanillin this year also and plans to market synthetic biology copies of stevia and saffron flavors. Solazyme is developing a “synthetized in algae” version of cocoa butter, as well as an oil designed to mimic the properties of palm oil.  Amyris, the first company in the field, is already marketing its farnasene oil to a Japanese pharmaceutical company and to the US military as “jet fuel.”  Ginkoworks does not disclose the work that it is doing for various food companies. Intrexon, the genetic engineering company that owns roughly half of the company that has produced the GE salmon, is also participating. Monsanto, DuPont and Ajinomoto are the only “big” biotechnology firms present.  Interestingly, two in-vitro meat companies, Modern Meadow and Sand Hill Foods, are also attending, even though most genetic engineers would not call their work synthetic biology.