Category: Science & Society

The high price of food labels

If you’re like me, grocery shopping is both a pleasure and a struggle. I love to see which fresh produce and fancy cheeses are available! But meal planning is a challenge when your household contains one adventurous vegetarian (that’s me!) and two choosy eaters. Our grocery budget can get a bit out of control as I’m trying to meet each person’s needs and wants. Still, things could be a lot worse. I could be buying foods with organic or non-GMO labels.

What do organic and non-GMO labels even mean?

Produce section at a grocery store in Virginia. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.

Farmers and manufacturers can gain organic certification if they follow certain processes related to how they grow crops and process foods. Organic is commonly touted as pesticide-free, but organic farmers have a list of pesticides they may choose from. Conventional agriculture may use any registered pesticide, and may use any approved genetically engineered crops (commonly called genetically modified organisms or GMOs). Whether you choose organic or conventional, there is no need for concern about pesticide residues, particularly for products grown in the United States.

While academics and government agencies debate the definition of GMO, for many people the meaning is simple. GMO signifies all they want to avoid about modern agriculture. That’s an unfortunate point of view, because biotechnology is simply a breeding process that can be used in any farming system. Decades of research have found the process of genetic engineering to be safe, and consumer concerns about GMOs are largely unfounded.

What does the data say?

Many people assume that organic and non-GMO foods are more expensive, but is that really the case? In the recently published The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food, agricultural economists Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Jayson Lusk, and Alexandre Magnier used Nielsen product data to actually look at consumer purchasing and prices of organic and non-GMO foods from 2009 to 2016.

The researchers considered the average price premium for organic and non-GMO options in four food categories: salad and cooking oils, tortilla chips, breakfast cereal, and ice cream. Most products in the study were labeled either organic or non-GMO. Since GMOs are prohibited in organic agriculture, a non-GMO label on an organic product is redundant. However, a product can be non-GMO but not organic. Products with both labels were counted as organic for this study to avoid double-counting.

In Want non-GMO? How much more will it cost?, Jayson (one of the paper’s authors) writes: “We picked these product categories because they represent classes of products for which the potential impact of changes in the raw ingredients on the final retail price might be large (i.e., soybean or corn oil for which the supply is primarily GMO) to small (i.e., ice cream where the value share of GMO crops and their derivatives (e.g. corn syrup) is probably less than 5%).”

The high price of organic and non-GMO labels

The researchers found that sales of organic and non-GMO products vary considerably by category. Organic products made up nearly 10% of cooking and salad oils and nearly 8% of tortilla chips sold in 2016 – much higher than I’d expected.

The ice cream category was also very surprising. Given the specific marketing messages around organic dairy, I was expecting organic ice cream sales to be higher than non-GMO but the data shows the opposite. The Non-GMO Project verifies “non-GMO milk”, even though there are no genetically engineered cows. All milk is non-GMO by definition, although cows might be fed non-GMO or conventional feed.

Data from “The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food”, chart created by Anastasia Bodnar in Excel.

Looking at data from 2009 to 2016, the researchers found that organic and non-GMO foods in all four categories had higher prices compared to conventional foods.

Organic ice cream was over 60% more expensive than conventional ice cream. Organic dairy is heavily marketed as superior to conventional dairy, even though there is no practical difference in the final product or in how the animals are treated. Apparently that marketing is nonetheless effective in commanding higher prices.

Data from “The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food”, chart created by Anastasia Bodnar in Excel.

More Labels, more problems

In addition to the organic and non-GMO labels, the authors looked at a number of other labels.

  • “Natural” labels increased prices in all four food categories, including increasing ice cream prices by over 36%. There is no definition for “natural” when it comes to food.
  • “Gluten free” labels increased prices in all four food categories, including increasing breakfast cereal prices by almost 40%. Less than 1% of people in the US have celiac disease, but increasing numbers are avoiding gluten for claimed health benefits.
  • “Multigrain” or “whole grain” labels increased prices of tortilla chips by 25%, and increased breakfast cereal prices by nearly 7%. While eating whole grains is important, chips are never a health food.
  • “No hormones” labels on ice cream increased prices by 15%. All milk naturally contains the hormone estrogen, regardless of how the cows were raised.
  • Some labels did not increase or decrease prices in the four food categories: “no preservative”, “rich in antioxidants”, “rich in vitamins”, “fat free”, “low fat”, “low salt/sodium”, and “low sugar/no sugar added”. Unlike most of the other labels, these labels actually indicate some potential health benefits of a product.
  • “Low calorie” labels on ice cream decreased prices by 20%, probably because low calorie ice cream never tastes as good as high calorie ice cream!

Higher food prices due to these labels impact our budgets

The US Department of Agriculture regularly develops Thrifty, Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, and Liberal Food Plans. Each plan represents a healthy diet for that price point, and includes grains, vegetables, fruits, dairy, meat, beans, and other foods. I like to check my grocery budget against the USDA plans, hoping to stay within the low to moderate range for my family of 3. The monthly budget for an average family of 4 with two children is $642.30 for thrifty, $844.90 for low-cost, $1052.40 for moderate-cost, and $1279.40 for liberal food plans.

Based on the data in this paper, avoiding unnecessary labels means a smaller grocery bill. I’d love to see a follow-up paper that looks at USDA food plan costs with conventional, organic, and non-GMO products. Even if a family doesn’t often splurge on ice cream, cooking oil and breakfast cereal are pretty standard in most households, and these results indicate that there are likely price increases across most if not all food categories. While some families find extreme couponing, shopping around, buying bulk, and other practices help to reduce their grocery bills – all of that takes time. And time is money, too.

Don’t fall for labels

While some labeling can be informative and improve transparency, labels can also lead to confusion. Labels can make perfectly healthy food seem suspect – do you want to buy regular bananas or organic bananas? The organic bananas costs 20 cents more a pound, so they must be better, right? But a higher price doesn’t necessarily signify a higher quality product. A higher price also doesn’t necessarily mean that product costs more to produce.

Produce at a grocery store in Fairfax, Virginia, on March 3, 2011. USDA Photo by Lance Cheung.

Food labels can also make us think unhealthy foods are healthy. Organic cookies are still cookies. Organic chips are still chips. Further, inaccurate claims about foods can cause people to make less healthy choices, such as buying less produce after hearing false claims about pesticide residues.
To make matters worse, there are many examples of products where a switch to organic or non-GMO resulted in smaller package sizes, fewer nutrients, and even overall worse nutrition (higher calories, more sugar) along with the higher price.

It’s no wonder why marketers slap on as many labels as possible – they want to charge you more! Consider what grocery stores are doing to hide price differences. Many stores now put all of the organic products in one section, making it harder for us compare prices. We’re also more likely to buy other organic items while in that section. So, don’t fall for the labels. As any registered dietitian will tell you, the food label that matters most is the Nutrition Facts label.

Note: This article was originally posted on the SciMoms blog, and has been republished here with permission.

The scary truth behind fear of GMOs

“First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance,” said President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about the hunger and desperation of the American people during the depression. Today, there is also fear, though we are in a time of relative plenty.

The National Science Foundation surveys a representative sample of Americans every two years. The General Social Survey asks about general attitudes about science in general and about specific science topics. For a quick overview of the highlights, see Everything Americans Know About Science in Seven Graphs by Sara Chodosh.

One positive finding: Americans are worried about climate change. Whether that translates into action or political will is another question. In this post, I’ll focus on the questions about genetically engineered foods, commonly called GMOs. According to the NSF, “data suggest that concern about GE food is increasing”.

Fear of GMOs is increasing

Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 7.33.40 PM
NSF General Social Survey data showing public assessment of the danger of modifying genes of crops to the environment. Responses from all adults shown (n = 1,276 in 2000; 1,430 in 2010; 911 in 2016). Graph by Anastasia Bodnar.

The results from 2016 are strikingly different from results in 2000 and 2010. The number of respondents who find GMOs dangerous shot up to 79% in 2016, while just 18% thought GMOs are not dangerous, and 4% said they did not know. People are becoming more certain in their fear, not a good sign.

Women were more fearful than men. Those with more science knowledge or higher levels of education are less fearful than those who have less knowledge or are less educated. Age was not a factor. The fear of GMOs is confirmed by other research on public opinion, such as by Pew Research Center’s comparison of how scientists and the public view science issues.

These results may not accurately describe how Americans feel about GMOs. If you ask people what are the top things they are concerned about when it comes to food, GMOs hardly make the list. People care much more about quality and cost. For example, in a 2013 study from Rutgers University, researchers asked “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” Only 7% raised the issue of GMO labeling, and only 6% wanted more info about where or how the food was grown or processed.

When people are specifically asked about GMOs, the number of people who want them labeled increases sharply. An overwhelming majority of people also want mandatory labels on food containing DNA, when asked specifically about DNA in food. Prompting people about specific food characteristics clearly leads to results that are skewed higher than if questions are asked without a prompt.

Why are people so afraid of GMOs?

Little red barn. Photo of Woodchuck Farm by William Garrett, enhanced by Dianne Lacourciere using textures by Distressed Jewel.
Little red barn. Photo of Woodchuck Farm by William Garrett, enhanced by Dianne Lacourciere using textures by Distressed Jewel.

Selling fear is lucrative. It’s really hard to fundraise when your message is “food is pretty safe”. Multiple organizations and individuals have made names for themselves by scaring people about GMOs. Journalists, trained to seek out both sides of a story, often give these organizations and individuals space to promote their biased, incorrect information. While I think a fair amount of blame can be placed in the hands of a few, there are some larger issues here.

People accept all sorts of technologies in medicine and cosmetics but have different ideas when it comes to food. Most of us have an idyllic scene in our minds of a little red barn and some peaceful cows, maybe an apple tree. The realities of farming have never met that image, but while we might be able to accept a robot apple picker, many of us don’t like the idea of pesticides, manipulated genes, or even “chemicals” in our food. Organic and “natural” food marketing have taken advantage of this idyllic view of farming.

As farming has become more industrialized and more efficient, the number of farms (and number of farmers) has steeply declined. Most people don’t know any farmers, and have never visited a farm. Consumers don’t understand why a farmer might need to use pesticides or the economic forces causing farm consolidation. The media rightly publicizes stories like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, but people aren’t hearing stories about how technologies and practices are making farms more sustainable. Larger concerns about industrialization and consolidation have been projected onto biotechnology, such that all ills of agriculture are blamed on GMOs.

Scientists and science communicators are also partially to blame for GMO fear. The language we choose influences what people see. Academic and government sources tend to use the terms biotechnology, transgenic, or genetic engineering, and rarely use the term GMO. That means that scientific or government sources rarely appear when people are searching for information on this topic. You can see the effect of language by doing an image search for the different terms. Imagery matters, and the imagery associated with GMOs is not accurate to say the least. (Click the images below to see a larger view.)

  • Google image search for genetic engineering.
  • Google image search for transgenic.
  • Google image search for biotechnology.

Lastly, we may at least partially blame irrational fears about GMOs on the Russians. Yes, the Russians. As reported in the Des Moines Register, Russian propaganda outlets RT and Sputnik “produced more articles containing the word GMO than five [US] news organizations combined.” Further, “RT and Sputnik overwhelmingly portrayed genetic modification in a negative light.” The preprint is now available: Sowing the seeds of skepticism: Russian state news and the anti-GMO movement. The propaganda fits with a resurgence of anti-science sentiment in Russia.

Does it matter what people think about GMOs?

Fear of biotechnology can have negative impacts, both for current agriculture, and as we look to the future. Currently, we have only a handful of foods that are genetically engineered. See my post How to Avoid GMOs to learn exactly which ones. The GMOs we have are being used for good reasons. Virus resistant papaya saved the papaya industry. Without it, Hawaiian papaya farmers would go out of business. Insect resistant corn has reduced insecticide use, decreased deadly fungal toxins, and increased yields. Herbicide tolerant soybeans allowed farmers to use a less toxic herbicide (though not so much in corn). These aren’t perfect, but they have provided value to farmers, to the environment, and to consumers. Take those options away, and agriculture becomes less sustainable, not more.

Fear of biotechnology matters more as we look to the future. Traditional breeding is powerful, but has its limits. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of biotech traits that could be hugely beneficial, if only they could be commercialized and accepted by consumers. Just in the past few months, there have been papers about rice with decreased arsenic, disease resistant wheat, healthier oil from soybeans, and salt tolerant soybeans.

If you can find a gene or group of genes that causes a desired trait, biotechnology can potentially be used to edit the genes directly (gene editing), to cause a gene or genes to be expressed in a new tissue or at higher levels (cisgenesis), or to move a gene or genes from one species into another (transgenesis). Gene editing might replace some need for cisgenesis and transgenesis. But activist groups see gene editing as just more GMOs. And even if gene editing can escape overly stringent regulation, developers still have to face public opinion.

Here’s just one example of the damage that can be caused by irrational fear of biotechnology. Drought tolerant corn has already proceeded through safety approvals in South Africa and is available for purchase. Unfortunately, many other African countries continue to restrict or ban use of agricultural biotechnology, despite proven benefits. Tanzania allowed field trials, but ultimately required all of the grain to be burned while people in the country go hungry.

What biotechnology issues resonate with students?

Written by Brittany Anderton

Source: Portal Educativo. Image slightly modified.

Biotechnology is poised to become one of the most valuable scientific revolutions of the 21st century. Because the field is developing so quickly, the gap between expert and non-expert knowledge is increasing at a time when societal decisions about it are becoming more and more important. So how do we promote biotechnology literacy in the classroom? What should non-experts know about genetic technologies in order to make informed decisions? I conducted a study to answer these questions, and here is what I found.
Even though scientific knowledge is an important part of science literacy, how people feel about a technology – their general positive or negative attitudes – also plays a role in their decision-making. In fact, there’s evidence that attitudes play a greater role than knowledge in determining students’ behavior toward biotechnology. I set out to understand what issues undergraduate students draw upon when they reason about genetic technologies. I also wanted to know whether classroom dialogue about biotechnology influences their attitudes and understanding. This information can provide a window into the conceptual frameworks that students use to make decisions about genetic technologies, and can help educators and communicators develop specific strategies for connecting with their audiences.

Students discuss biotechnology

Twenty years ago, my postdoctoral mentor Pamela Ronald launched an innovative course designed for non-science majors at UC Davis. Genetics and Society engages students in the science, politics, social issues, ethics, and economics surrounding biotechnology. It remains popular today. Recognizing the importance of dialogue around this complex topic, Pam introduced “discussion sections” into the course. During the discussion sections, students engage in rational discourse about a biotechnology issue – for example, whether or not all food containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients should be labeled as “GMO”. The discussion sections provide an opportunity for students to share their thoughts and consider the many facets involved in decision-making about biotechnology. Scientific arguments used in the class are required to be evidence-based, and students are graded on the credibility of their sources. While students in Genetics and Society generally enjoy these peer-to-peer discussions, no one had looked closely at how they influence their understanding and attitudes about genetic technologies.
At the beginning of the course, I asked the students to state their attitudes on seven different biotechnology applications. Three topics related to food: whether or not we should label GMOs, whether GE of plants should be prohibited, and whether GE of animals should be prohibited. I also asked the students to justify their attitude for each topic. At the end of each weekly discussion section, during which a group of students presented on an individual application/topic, I collected this information a second time from the students in the audience. These pre-post attitudes with corresponding reasoning provided the data for my study.

Figure 1. Student attitudes significantly changed for three topics following classroom dialogue. Source: Anderton & Ronald, Journal of Biological Education, 2017.

I started by looking for significant changes in students’ attitudes following the discussion sections. I found significant changes for three topics: GMO labeling, GE of animals, and the FDA ban on 23andme’s health reports* (Figure 1). Because the students did not appear to have familiarity with the 23andme ban at the beginning of the course, I didn’t select that topic for further analysis. In the end, I selected GMO labeling and GE of animals, as well as two topics for which I didn’t observe significant attitude changes (DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing research) for further analysis. Pam and I reasoned that it was important to take a close look at student reasoning in the presence and absence of attitude changes, because learning can happen even if a person doesn’t change their mind.

Analyzing the themes

Using the justifications given by the students for their attitudes on the four topics selected above – GMO labeling, GE of animals, DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing – I performed an approach called thematic analysis, in which I looked for overarching patterns or themes that were prevalent in students’ reasoning about biotechnology. Through an iterative process, I identified seven major themes that students drew upon in their justifications (Figure 2). I also tallied the number of times I detected a change in the use of a theme following a given discussion section (i.e., whenever a student adopted new reasoning or abandoned prior reasoning following a discussion section).

Figure 2. Seven overarching themes related to student reasoning about biotechnology. Source: Anderton & Ronald, Journal of Biological Education, 2017.

Our preliminary evidence suggests that the discussion sections – and perhaps classroom discourse in particular – provide students with a more nuanced understanding of biotechnology. For example, students generally increased their use of “Middle Way” reasoning following the discussion sections. This suggests that they developed a greater appreciation of regulations that consider biotechnology applications on a case-by-case basis. We also observed increased use of the Economic theme following the two discussion sections for which students had significant attitude changes. It is possible that the economic considerations of genetic technologies can sway people’s attitudes, but this remains to be proven.
Scientific decision-making involves more than just facts. By better understanding the complex processes that take place when students learn and make decisions about genetic technologies – like we did in this study – educators can connect with their audiences and promote biotechnology literacy. A more informed and nuanced discussion will help our society determine the best ways to use biotechnology and to direct our focus as it continues to evolve.
 
To access the full version of the manuscript, Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology, please go to: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599.
Please address any questions or comments to Brittany Anderton at bnanderton@udavis.edu.
 
*The FDA banned 23andme genetic health reports in November 2013, citing concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of such information to consumers. In October 2015 the ban was lifted, and 23andme resumed offering carrier-status testing, though no longer offers testing for health conditions such as cancer and heart disease.

Written by Guest Expert

Brittany Anderton seeks to improve the intersection of science and society by educating the next generation of responsible scientists and citizens. She has a PhD in cancer biology, studied the teaching and communication of biotechnology as a postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis, and is now the Associate Director of Research Talks at iBiology and Lecturer at CSU Sacramento.

Give Silenced Crops your Voice!

PapayaRingspotVirus05
The impact of the papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii

For decades, the people who depend upon papayas have been in trouble. One of their greatest challenges has been the devastating papaya ringspot virus, which has defied conventional approaches to management and eradication. In the 1980s and 90s, plant scientists turned to using biotechnology to create papaya plants that would resist the disease. In 1998, the first seeds of a genetically engineered Hawaiian papaya were planted by farmers, which quickly became a success story that rescued farmers from the destruction caused by the virus.
Other scientists around the world were working on similar approaches for the different papaya varieties that farmers grew in their countries. The viral strains they faced in each country were also different. Scientists in Thailand, Venezuela, and elsewhere worked on duplicating the Hawaiian success story. But these projects have not succeeded because of strong pressure from activists, including vandalism and destruction of research, threats, and silencing the voices of the scientists who were trying to help their own people – who depended on this tropical fruit. In the year 2000 the papayas in Venezuela were burnt to the ground.
Now we have a chance to hear the voices that have been silenced. A group of science communicators led by Guido Núñez launched a Kickstarter to support their documentary, Silenced Crops, which recently passed their minimum funding goal. With just 24 hours left to their fundraiser, you can still be a part of their effort to tell this story, and also get some benefits for yourself. We interviewed Guido so we could all learn more about his project. Read on, below!

1. Please tell us a little about yourself and your team.

We are a team composed by me, a computational biologist, Raúl Vegas, an entomologist and Sebastián Gamboa, a filmmaker. We are all from the Andean region of Venezuela, Raúl and I went to college together in Mérida and Sebastián is a mutual friend. II have been thinking about this documentary for many years, and I asked Raúl if he knew of a great film director, and he recruited Sebastián for the project. I am living between Santiago, Chile and Denver, Colorado, and Raúl and Sebastián live in Mérida. Our full team is:
silenced-crops-2

  • Executive producer: Guido Núñez;
  • Field Producer: Raúl Vegas;
  • Director and editor: Sebastián Gamboa;
  • Direction of photography: Marleny Salas y Sebastián Gamboa;
  • Sound Direction: Gherman Gil;
  • Graphic Design: Betzabeth Millano;
  • 2D Animation: Arturo Marquina;
  • Production in Caracas: Mariah Sosa;
  • Consultant: Kaori Flores;
  • Pictures: Katie Briceño;
  • Social media: Alena Luces and Raúl Vegas

2. What inspired you to investigate the Venezuela GM papaya story for a documentary?

I was at my first semester in the university when this incident happened. I saw first-hand the campaign of lies and rumors against the papayas and the scientists, I remember the terror of people in Mérida. I decided on that moment to fight against it, and even if I could not do a lot, I started writing scientific articles, giving talks, and I founded the first skeptical association of Venezuela when I was 18 years old. There are some obsessions that you cannot get out of your head, and this documentary is one of those, it is extremely unfair that the scientists never got to express their views in public. I have been thinking about it for years, but now I decided to make it happen, as the food crisis in Venezuela is a direct result of the same attitude to science (and economy) and experts that destroyed the papayas. I also was selected recently as a Fellow of the Cornell Alliance for Science, an initiative to change the public perception of science and educate the public about the benefits of biotechnology, and this project would complement my fellowship there.

3. Who does this issue affect the most?

This affects consumers the most, who get fruits of lower quality and farmer who get poor yields. Researchers were affected and persecuted, even for just writing favorably about biotechnology.

4. Who are you going to interview for the documentary? Do you have any plans to reach out to local groups who opposed the transgenic papaya?

A large part of the documentary is interviewing groups who still, in the middle of the crisis in Venezuela, insist that GM agriculture is not necessary. We will interview local farmers, one of the security guards of the project and of course the researchers who developed the papaya.

infected-papaya
Papayas infected with the ringspot virus, Thailand.

5. Did the papaya research in Venezuela stop altogether or is it still being worked on?

The genetic material of the papaya is frozen and locked, waiting for better times. The research, not only in papaya, but in GM plants, stopped in Venezuela. I actually ended up as a computational biologist because the research in GM plants was not pursued by the labs in my university.

6. What are some questions that you have about the Venezuelan GM papaya story that you hope to answer in your documentary?

I am curious to find out if the main promoters of the papaya incident are still in Venezuela and helping the farmers, or if they left the country and are not living the results of their actions. I want to know if the lives of the farmers are any better as a result of this, and we are going to do some social science research with the funds too to figure this out.

7. Who is your main audience for this documentary – who do you hope to reach with this story, and who needs to hear it the most?

We primarily hope to reach layman audiences who do not understand the consequences of science rejection and policy making based on ideology. We also want to reach anyone interested in the disaster happening in Venezuela these days, to tell the story of one of the first obvious mistakes of the Chavista government. To the anti GMO activists, I hope to reach them and show them that their actions have profound effects.

c0157289-4252-4e23-b4d5-087a6ea5dcba
Papaya Amigurumi, one of the rewards you can get by donating to their Kickstarter. Also available are DVDs, credits, and satisfaction.

8. Congratulations on passing your minimum funding goal of US $3,000! If you are able to raise more funds for this project, what more do you think you will be able to do with the project?

I intend to pay better salaries to our team. 3,000 USD is not a lot, even if it goes a very long way in Venezuela, but we are all working on this because we care deeply about the issue, because we want people to learn from our tragedy in Venezuela, so we’ll pay the team a bit more. A minimum wage in Venezuela these days is 12 USD a month, so every extra dollar will be able to help people there.

9. Finally, after the fundraiser is over, are there other ways that people can help you achieve your goals?

We are going to sell T shirts and mugs and we will keep accepting donations on PayPal.

1471f2fc-5d47-4d21-8fcc-255f4fa1599f
Some of their T-shirt designs

We thank Guido for taking the time to tell us more about his project! Now is your chance to lend your voice to the plight of papaya farmers, consumers, and scientists in Venezuela. I, for one, am donating $25 to get one of their cute Papaya Amigurumi knit plushies. As someone who has dabbled in plant plushies, I can appreciate the artwork!
It will be a challenge to get all the voices needed to make a good documentary that is true to the scientific facts, while also allowing for inclusiveness of the diverse people who are part of this story – many of who are not necessarily motivated by science but by conflicting values. I think, though, that sticking to the most universal values – such as the hardships borne by the people of Venezuela from the consumers and farmers to the scientists, and their hope for a better world will have the most impact. I already can’t wait to hear the voices of Venezuela that we will hear when we watch Silenced Crops.

Why aren’t GMOs tested on humans?

A very common question or criticism of GMOs is that they are not properly tested, particularly on humans. Some individuals believe that GMOs should be tested the same way drugs are tested. I’ve read comments such as “I won’t believe GMOs are safe until they’re tested for 5 years on humans and we examine long-term impact”. In this post, we’ll explore these ideas.
Continue reading “Why aren’t GMOs tested on humans?” →

How Pat Roberts’ bill could actually result in labeling GMOs

stabenow-frank
Debbie Stabenow D-Michigan, Chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee, with Frank N. Foode during a visit in 2013

Last week, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) introduced a bill to the US Senate Agricultural Committee that concerns labeling genetically engineered foods, or GMOs. The main thrust of the bill seeks to pre-empt state legislatures from creating their own unique label requirements for GMOs, instead instructing the USDA to come up with a voluntary labeling scheme. The Senate Agricultural Committee, headed by Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) who has expressed a sense of urgency in addressing this topic, reviewed the bill on Tuesday March 1st, and approved it 14-6. While proponents of mandatory GMO labeling have derided this bill as a means to prevent GMOs from being labeled, a closer analysis reveals that it has some unique characteristics that might actually result in GMOs being labeled, but not necessarily the way that labeling proponents have in mind. Continue reading “How Pat Roberts’ bill could actually result in labeling GMOs” →

BBC Panorama on cultivating GMO fear

p02t8wsgI just got around to watching the June 8, 2015 episode of BBC’s Panorama, which focused on genetically engineered crops. Not willing to let the debate be handed over to softball questions or shouting matches, they handled it in true British style: Thoughtfully, inclusively, and also by traveling to Bangladesh to eat some Bt Brinjal! The only thing missing was a curry. If you haven’t seen this episode, it is certainly worth a watch! Hat tip to Chanin King in the Friends of Frank N. Foode Facebook group who found a version that we can see outside the UK.