GMO labeling debate in two panels

This is pretty much everything that needs to be said about GMO labeling.
Read more...

Being a contrarian conscious consummer

Today I was about to by some roasted red pepper hummus at the grocery story. There were four different brands and for the first time I spotted a little voluntary label on the front of the container from my normal brand, boasting that the contents did not contain any genetically-modified ingredients.

I am a steadfast supporter of GMO technology. The basic idea is that human beings can use science to improve the foods we eat instead of blindly following what nature has provided us. Opposition to GMO's is a hysterical pseuoscientific cultlike movment akin to creationism and alternative medicine. The anti-GMO crowd is the left wing equivalent of global warming denialists.

Suddenly, I didn't want to buy that brand of hummus anymore. It's not that it's dangerous or unhealthy to eat foods that lack genetic modification, but that I was concerned about the message I would be sending as a consumer. I pictured a marketing team combing through sales data and trying to figure out if the GMO-free label brought in more sales.

Sadly, I imagine it does. Looking through the display, I could only find one brand of hummus that didn't declare itself to be GMO-free, and that was Sabra.

Sabra was a little cheaper than the other brands, which could mean it's by a lower-quality product. It could also mean the company isn't wasting money on overpriced organic, GMO-free ingredients, so that issue was a wash.

What did stay my hand was that there were no roasted red pepper containers from Sabra, while the other brands still had them in stock. I contemplated buying one of of the GMO-free brands to get my preferred flavor, but opted not to. I didn't want any market researchers to falsely conclude that I was encourage to buy their product because of the GMO-free label.

I ended up buying Sabra's roasted pine nut hummus instead. I wasn't sure what pine nuts tasted like, but it turned out to be superb.

So tell me, doesn't that make me an ethical consumer? Usually, that label refers to people who buy products with flower power mission statements, such as Seventh Generation Dish Detergent, but why shouldn't the same logic apply to the other end of the spectrum?

For years I've boycotted organic products. That's because organic food production is wasteful, cruel to animals, environmentally damaging and provides no health benefits. That is to say, I consider it entirely unethical to give my money to organic companies and farmers. The higher prices organic merchants charge are just the whip cream on the sundae.

Being a contrarian doesn't mean one lacks principals, it just means that they have a different perspective. I can't see any reason that the banner of "ethical consumers" shouldn't include contrarians like me who oppose the very products mainstream ethical consumers champion.
Read more...

The cost of GMO phobia

The Farmer's Daughter blogger compared nutrition labels to find that the public's preference for GMO-free food is causing some breakfast cereal companies to change their nutritional content for the worse.

So far she has documented Cheerios, and now Kashi's Go Lean Crisp:

The calories went from 180 per serving to 190 per serving. Saturated fat when from 0 to 0.5g. The potassium went from 250 to 210. Soluble fiber dropped from 5 to 4g, while insoluble fiber went from 3 to 4. Sugar also increased from 10 to 11g. Phosphorus from 15% down to 10%. Iron went from 8% to 10% of RDA. Finally, magnesium went from 10 to 8% of RDA. 

In other words: the non-GMO cereal is less healthy for you. 

Just more proof that the war on biotechnology isn't about health and nutrition and making food safer. It isn't about protecting consumers from "big ag" or "evil Monsanto."

I will add that the change did increase dietary fiber from 30 percent of one's daily need to 32 percent, but that is more than offset by the calorie increase.
Read more...

The Scracrow is a Scaremonger

It appears I am the last person to have watched Chipotle's beautifully-rendered fearmongering cartoon about the coldness of modern agriculture.




Good grief, talk about romanticizing the past. As one farmer said in response to it, they want our food to be produced using methods from several generations ago, but they don't want the lower standard of living associated with life several generations ago and the two are very much a packaged deal.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, which took in $2.7 billion in revenue and has more than 1,500 locations is a strange bird to wrap itself in anti-corporate feathers, but what other lesson could someone take away from its ad campaign?

I don't normally like to cite Mother Jones, but it appears the real hippies don't care for Chipotle's earthy-crunchy posturing either. The company touts its locally-sourced ingredients, but fails to admit that they make up a small fraction of the menu. It also postures itself as being anti-GMO, anti-factory farm and pro-organic when only portions of its food supply fit that label.

Then there's this billboard ad:

The company has even taken the simply monstrous stance against treating its meat animals with antibiotics. That's not actually true, as the Mother Jones article reminds us, but it is coarse for them insist that sick animals should be denied medical care so they can die a "natural" death.

The only thing customers should be afraid of here is the barbaric way Chiptole believes food should be raised.
Read more...

Completely monsterous

An angry mob of anti-GMO Luddites in the Philippines pillaged an experimental crop of Vitamin A-rich Golden Rice, but as Mark Lynas reports, their supporters spun it into propaganda and said it was a spontaneous action by farmers.

The nature of the attack was widely misreported, from the New York Times to New Scientist to BBC News, based on false claims by the activists. But then anti-GMO activists often lie. In support of the vandals, Greenpeace has claimed that there are health concerns about the genetically modified rice. In fact there is no evidence of risk, and the destruction of this field trial could lead to needless deaths.

What's more, the stakes are incredibly high:

Although some anti-GMO activists dismiss the public health problem of vitamin A deficiency to bolster their case, the medical community agrees that it is a major killer, comparable in scale to malaria, HIV/AIDS, or tuberculosis. The World Health Organization estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind each year because of a lack of vitamin A in their diets, and half of them die within 12 months.

The need to resort to lies to win support should be a red flag that one is on the wrong side of an issue. I'm reminded of the masked anti-globalization protesters who pretend the bandannas over their faces have nothing to do with concealing their identity when they start a riot.

Once again, the combination of utilitarianism and ignorance is leading self-righteous people to do something they know is wrong - lying to the public - because they mistakenly believe their actions will make the world a better place. In reality they are breaking their own moral codes in a manner that harms the poor of the world. No one gains from this, but plenty of people lose.
Read more...

The wisdom of Roseanne Barr

I'm a little late to this party but I just discovered that former sitcom actress Roseanne Barr has become a leader in the anti-GMO movement.

Was Balki from Perfect Strangers too articulate?

Just in case you're not convinced that the anti-GMO movement was full of maniacs, here's an interview where Roseanne spread her wisdom on GMO's, Monsanto and chemtrails.

And then there's this page where Roseanne joins forces with illiterate clown Cynthia McKinney.

Best of all, look at this gem from Occupy Monsanto's page on an anti-Monsanto protest:

The cause even drew a high-profile speaker in Roseanne Barr’s vice presidential candidate, Cindy Sheehan, representing the Peace and Freedom Party, who said “evil” companies like Monsanto must be stopped.

Roseanne for president? She ran for president? Yes, it's true, and her campaign page had even more pictures of the deranged Cynthia McKinney.

How desperate can a group be when it has to turn to Roseanne Barr for guidance?
Read more...

Mark Lynas has done it again

You may remember environmentalist Mark Lynas from his lecture at the Oxford Farming Conference in January about his own reversal on genetically-modified organisms.

This week he came back for more, giving a lecture at Cornell University about the conspiracy theorist nonsense from anti-GMO activists:



Here's a sample:

The anti-GMO campaign has also undoubtedly led to unnecessary deaths. The best documented example, which is laid out in detail by Robert Paarlberg in his book ‘Starved for Science’, is the refusal of the Zambian government to allow its starving population to eat imported GMO corn during a severe famine in 2002. 

Thousands died because the President of Zambia believed the lies of western environmental groups that genetically modified corn provided by the World Food Programme was somehow poisonous. I have yet to hear an apology from any of the responsible Western groups for their role in this humanitarian atrocity.

Lynas goes on to gut-punch pseudointellectuals like Vandana Shiva, Paul Ehrlich and the Union of Concerned Scientists. As usual, Lynas stresses the horrible consequences from these anti-science hucksters and lays out the facts in an engaging manner.
Read more...

GMO phobia is pseudoscience

Slate published an excellent piece by Keith Kloor today comparing the American left's fear of genetically modified foods to the right's denial of climate change science. He does not pull any punches.

I’ve found that fears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs.

In short, I’ve learned that the emotionally charged, politicized discourse on GMOs is mired in the kind of fever swamps that have polluted climate science beyond recognition.

This GMO denial makes little sense if you believe that the Democratic party is the party of science. It makes perfect sense if you believe that people in general tend to ignore science the moment is threatens their world view.

Evolution science is troublesome if you're a Bible literalist. If you want to fight the creation of new taxes, it's an awful sock in the jaw to hear that climate change is a negative externality of civilization and government interference may be needed. Conservatives who deny science are resisting new ideas, but that doesn't mean liberals deserve credit for accepting science that compliments their world view. In the case of climate change, the science supports the position liberals naturally hold.

The anti-vaccine movement is perceived as a left-wing anti-science movement. It's not as neat a divide as climate change, but it is closer to evolution denial, while 60 percent of Republicans reject it, a full 29 percent of Democrats deny evolution as well. The anti-vaccine activists includes people on the left who hate pharmaceutical companies with people on the right who fear government control of their children.

What we are seeing with this movement against using science to improve food is members of the left are the ones having their views challenged by science, and instead of listening they are responding like zealots. It doesn't matter what the experts say, they already have their minds made up.

The way this anti-GMO narrative perpetuates falls neatly in line with the life cycle of social activists. People in these political circles are turning to each other to learn about science on the subject, which includes big-name organizations, pseudointellectual documentaries, and fellow activists.

As I've said before, science-denial on the left does not excuse conservatives for their science denial and talking about the issue does not give the right a pass. Scientific findings should guide our politics, but we should never let our politics determine scientific findings.
Read more...

Ever consider Monsanto is right?

The organic root-chewing left lost a major battle this week after a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit a group of organic farmers filed against Monsanto, the large agricultural company.

Monsanto puts a lot of resources into tweaking seeds on the genetic level, and customers of those seeds agree they will not replant the seeds next season. This allows Monsanto to control the supply of its own product and prevent any genetic drift in the crops.

But sometimes people try to cheat Monsanto by trying to replant the seeds for multiple seasons, and the company takes them to court over it. The earthy-crunchy folk consider Monsanto a secular devil, so they assume guilt anytime the agricultural company enters a courtroom. The claim that some of the seeds accidentally blow in to neighboring farms and take root, and innocent farmers are at risk of being brought to court.

This narrative is taken on blind faith, of course, and the evidence hasn't been enough to convince the courts. This week we saw the dismissal of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto Company et al. Some quotes from the judge were repeated in Monsanto's press release:

U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." The ruling also found that the plaintiffs had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement," noting that Monsanto's average of roughly 13 lawsuits per year "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."

There are plenty of news articles that repeated the same quotes. I'm only quoting from Monsanto to prevent link decay.

Monsanto's enemies have to resort to conspiracy theories to explain the failure of these lawsuits to hold up in court. Just like when Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser was ruled in Monsanto's favor, I can already see the anti-GMO, anti-corporate activists swirling around this case, claiming the judge was somehow compromised.

What's more likely: An international conspiracy that controls the federal court systems in multiple nations, or Monsanto is innocent of some of the wild allegations from the fringe left?
Read more...