Labels for GMO foods are a bad idea

Acg67

For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

Instead of providing people with useful information, mandatory GMO labels would only intensify the misconception that so-called Frankenfoods endanger people’s health. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques—which swap giant chunks of DNA between one plant and another—genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, is less likely to produce an unexpected result. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

The public’s perception of GMOs has a subtle psychological effect that could explain the widespread fear driving the anti-GMO community. There are more than 20 labeling initiatives around the country, including a high profile campaign in Washington State that will be voted on this fall.

Konnikova describes a psychological phenomenon called the “halo effect,” “whereby one positive attribute of a person or thing colors other, unrelated characteristics in a positive light.” In the grocery store, there is always that special aisle labeled ‘organic.’ But what’s so special about this label? Konnikova, citing a 2013 study from Cornell University, explains that a cookie labeled ‘organic’ will be perceived as healthier, safer and worth a higher price tag than a cookie lacking the label – even if the two cookies are identical.

David H. Freedman, in an Atlantic Monthly feature story last month, catalogues this effect without ever naming it. He tells an anecdote about searching Los Angeles high and low for the healthiest smoothie. After checking out numerous proudly labeled ‘organic’ smoothies from restaurants that boast healthier, farm-fresh food choices, he finds the healthiest smoothie, with the least amount of calories and sugar, at McDonald’s. He goes on to describe how many popular ‘organic’ food items are not as healthy as we think they are – breaded peas soaked in fatty oils, tofu cakes loaded with fats and carbs, kale salads dripping with fatty, salty dressing.

Despite the organic labels, these particular foods were not as healthy as many people assume. The organic label designates a production process and nothing more, although many people erroneously believe organic foods are necessarily more nutritious or healthier

The halo effect can be seen in the GMO labeling fight, only in the case of GMOs, it is reversed.

Konnikova explains that consumers experience a “reverse halo effect” when perceiving GMOs – once something is labeled ‘genetically modified,’ it will be perceived as unnatural, which has a history of being synonymous with ‘bad.’ Humankind has been genetically modifying organisms for centuries with selective breeding, so the fact that this modern technology does it at a lab bench colors the whole process in an unfamiliar, and therefore more terrifying, light.

Consumer fear of GMOs seems to originate from a lack of knowledge about GMOs themselves. As the recently anti-GMO activist turned GMO advocate Mark Lynas has said, “the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century.”

Those entities perceived to be ‘in control’–in this case, multinational corporations such as Monsanto or Syngenta that control a large part of the GMO seed market–are also not inciting a feeling of trust that is necessary for consumers to accept an unfamiliar technology like GMOs. As Konnikova writes, “In addition to perceptions of risk, one of the single greatest elements that effects [sic] our acceptance of new technologies is trust.” At the moment, very few people really know what GMOs are, what the process of genetically modifying an organism entails, or how GMOs really differ from non-GMOs.

In an effort to combat this unfamiliarity and gain the trust of consumers, several well-known corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, recently launched GMO Answers, a site aiming to “do a better job answering your questions – no matter what they are – about GMOs.” Their stated goal: to start an open dialogue and provide science and fact-based information to the general public.

The response from GMO opponents has been frosty at best. GMWatch immediately called for its readers to sign up for an account on GMO Answers—not to join the conversation but to “challenge each of their misleading entries.” Many anti-GMO activists claim the corporation-funded site is merely a public relations tactic meant to distract the public from recent food-labeling bills that have sprouted around the country. Every independent scientist who addressed an issue (everything from terminator seeds to threats from potential new allergens) has been accused of being owned by Monsanto or paid by the industry.

Despite the fact that Bt Cotton saved Burkina Faso’s cotton industry, or that the ring-spot virus is no longer a major threat to Hawaii’s papaya industry because of genetic modification, or that scientists have developed Golden Rice, which could save millions of children from vitamin A deficiency, the general public is shrouded in the reverse halo effect. Someday, Konnikova predicts, the need for the technology will outweigh the unnecessary fear.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/reversing-the-reverse-halo-effect-information-and-trust-are-key-to-dispelling-consumer-fears-of-gmos/#.UhT07FOndn4

Minnie2361

Interesting post, thanks OP

jwdieter

Where a product is manufactured may lead to people making uninformed decisions, so we should remove this information from products. For consumer protection.

sunsetzen

How exactly does removing labels protect consumers? It only protects the corporation that is selling it.

Acg67

Where a product is manufactured may lead to people making uninformed decisions, so we should remove this information from products. For consumer protection.

And what uninformed decision might that be?

FourIsCompany

Why have labels at all, then? Why not just put food out there and let the people take their chances?

Gluten intolerant? Too bad! You have to learn the hard way.
Peanut allergies? Be sure to carry your epipen at all times.
Don't want trans fat? Hope you are a good guesser.

I think informing the public of what is in their product is an important responsibility of the manufacturer.

jwdieter

Where a product is manufactured may lead to people making uninformed decisions, so we should remove this information from products. For consumer protection.

And what uninformed decision might that be?

Well, for example, lead concerns related to Chinese manufacturing.
Or sub-par manufacturing for Japanese products last century.
Or maybe people want to buy local, but the local product is of lower quality. Can't have that!

Or you could branch off into providing fat or carbohydrate information in foods - since people often misuse this information based on faulty understanding of biomechanics, we should just take it away.

Basically, removing information to protect consumers from assumed misconceptions is a very shady path. Provide the information and educate consumers.

Acg67

Why have labels at all, then? Why not just put food out there and let the people take their chances?

Gluten intolerant? Too bad! You have to learn the hard way.
Peanut allergies? Be sure to carry your epipen at all times.
Don't want trans fat? Hope you are a good guesser.

I think informing the public of what is in their product is an important responsibility of the manufacturer.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not."

So let's compare apples to apples. And trans fats? Hope you avoid grass fed meats

Acg67

Where a product is manufactured may lead to people making uninformed decisions, so we should remove this information from products. For consumer protection.

And what uninformed decision might that be?

Well, for example, lead concerns related to Chinese manufacturing.
Or sub-par manufacturing for Japanese products last century.
Or maybe people want to buy local, but the local product is of lower quality. Can't have that!

Or you could branch off into providing fat or carbohydrate information in foods - since people often misuse this information based on faulty understanding of biomechanics, we should just take it away.

Basically, removing information to protect consumers from assumed misconceptions is a very shady path. Provide the information and educate consumers.

Lead is known to be harmful, GMOs are not. Nor are they known to be of sub par quality (although to be fair there has been some studies to show some crops are less nutrient dense).

I'm not sure labeling GMO foods would do anything to educate folks, esp with the fear mongering rampant

LeviLeDoux

Eating organic doesn't mean you can stray from making wise food decisions. I prefer to eat organically because it has more flavor and nutrients, and am all for labeling GMOs.

Acg67

Eating organic doesn't mean you can stray from making wise food decisions. I prefer to eat organically because it has more flavor and nutrients, and am all for labeling GMOs.

Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods

jwdieter

Lead is known to be harmful, GMOs are not. Nor are they known to be of sub par quality (although to be fair there has been some studies to show some crops are less nutrient dense).

I'm not sure labeling GMO foods would do anything to educate folks, esp with the fear mongering rampant

Lead is known to be harmful, however lead is not a legal additive to our food supply or most children's toys. This is regulated by our government. If you fear lead based on Chinese manufacture, you are willfully ignoring our government product quality protection. However, people still make choices based on this unfounded fear, therefore we should remove the information.

Or we could let people make their decisions based on what they feel is appropriate. Maybe they're wrong. So it goes.

Even when there's an actual public health risk (see vaccines), we allow people to make their own decisions.

If people will not be convinced that GMO products are viable alternatives, so it goes. Hiding the origin or other information is not a good answer, and it's anti-capitalistic too.

magerum

Eating organic doesn't mean you can stray from making wise food decisions. I prefer to eat organically because it has more flavor and nutrients, and am all for labeling GMOs.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/998983-misconceptions-of-organic-food-s

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/996243-still-think-eating-organic-isn-t-worth-it

Organic doesn't mean what you think it does.

magerum

http://rameznaam.com/2013/04/28/the-evidence-on-gmo-safety/

"A Scientific Consensus

All together, the scientific consensus around the safety of genetically modified foods is as strong as the scientific consensus around climate change. These foods have been studied more than any other, and everything tells us that they’re safe."

LeviLeDoux

Eating organic doesn't mean you can stray from making wise food decisions. I prefer to eat organically because it has more flavor and nutrients, and am all for labeling GMOs.

Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685

Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods

Fair enough, but it certainly doesn't change my opinion that organic tastes better. I also get peace of mind knowing I'm not ingesting pesticides.

_noob_

at least if it was labeled GMO you'd know you were eating foods (likely) grown in america...


...from farmers like my uncle

Acg67

Lead is known to be harmful, GMOs are not. Nor are they known to be of sub par quality (although to be fair there has been some studies to show some crops are less nutrient dense).

I'm not sure labeling GMO foods would do anything to educate folks, esp with the fear mongering rampant

Lead is known to be harmful, however lead is not a legal additive to our food supply or most children's toys. This is regulated by our government. If you fear lead based on Chinese manufacture, you are willfully ignoring our government product quality protection. However, people still make choices based on this unfounded fear, therefore we should remove the information.

Or we could let people make their decisions based on what they feel is appropriate. Maybe they're wrong. So it goes.

Even when there's an actual public health risk (see vaccines), we allow people to make their own decisions.

If people will not be convinced that GMO products are viable alternatives, so it goes. Hiding the origin or other information is not a good answer, and it's anti-capitalistic too.

Is it really hiding the origin? Would seedless fruit etc also be slapped with a GMO label?

magerum

Fair enough, but it certainly doesn't change my opinion that organic tastes better. I also get peace of mind knowing I'm not ingesting pesticides.

You are. "Organic" doesn't mean what you think it does.

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.


http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=08ed863d93110c01cb0728f8070a052f&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2&idno=7

FourIsCompany

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not."

Well, if you trust government agencies 100% to have your health and welfare (and not $$$) as their primary concern, then it would make sense not to label foods at all, because it doesn't get onto the shelf unless it's approved by the FDA. So, we really wouldn't need labels at all. Everything is safe!

And even if the FDA does approve something, Lord knows they have never been mistaken before. Oh, wait...

And trans fats? Hope you avoid grass fed meats

No, I don't. The point is I can make an EDUCATED choice as to what to avoid and what to put into my body. I believe the consumer should have the information AND the choice.

marsellient

I don't understand how labelling is a bad idea. People will do what they want with the information depending on how they feel about GMO's.

How does this discussion pertain to general diet and weight loss help?

jwdieter

Is it really hiding the origin? Would seedless fruit etc also be slapped with a GMO label?

If people are asking for information, and readily available information is not being provided, then yes it's hiding. Regarding foods like bananas and grapes, obviously there would need to be a definition to fall back on. Like "organic", it may well be a smokescreen after lobbyists get done with it. But it will be something within a set definition.

Next step, true origin sourcing of foods. It's very close. Information is incredibly easy to provide, so I look forward to more and more of it.