“The GMO Deception” is, in fact, deceptive

Recycling can be a very good practice. Re-using components of electronics, waste paper, and food scraps that would otherwise head to the waste stream can be a great idea. However, sometimes re-use doesn’t bring any value. Recycling bad claims and ideas about GMOs helps no one. Unfortunately, The GMO Deception is a prime example of worthless recycling.

A stale, misleading, text worth only about 2 pounds of recycled paper. — A stale and misleading text worth only about 2 pounds of recycled paper.

I found out about this text from Marion Nestle’s blog. She promoted this book in a post and by blurbing for it: This week’s reading: The GMO Deception. It didn’t take me long to find more details about it at the publisher’s site, because I had already been over there that same week. Skyhorse Publishing had just published RFK Jr’s new book on thimerosal and vaccines. And I learned that they had also published Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous Disregard”. This did not bode well for my confidence in scientific rigor, of course.
Unwilling to pay for the book ($24.95 at the publisher’s site), I put my name into my local library queue and waited. My chance arrived a couple weeks ago, and I began to look over the contents. Continue reading →

Six More Reasons To Vote No On GM Labeling Initiative

Written by Steve Savage

John Deere combine harvesting corn. — Combine harvesting corn. Image by Jay Bohnsack via Flickr.

(reposted from Science 2.0, 8/23/12)
Previously, I wrote about why GMO labeling is basically illogical. If you take the time to read the actual proposition, there are at least six more reasons that proposition 37 on the California ballot this fall is a really bad idea that voters should reject.
1. This is asking for something that is a great deal harder than it sounds.
Almost all GMO crops are commodity grains. To understand what labeling these crop ingredients means means, think of a river. When it rains, little rivulets of water begin to run off of the ground, and then combine into small creeks. These combine to make streams that eventually combine to make a river. By the time the water is in the river, it is so mixed that you could never know which drop came from where. Continue reading →

The FDA, The FBI, and Prop 37

What one misleading mailer and one false press release tell us about truth in labeling.

In the final days of the 2012 election, an exchange took place over California Proposition 37, which showed problems for both campaigns for and against the measure. It started with a mailer produced by the No on 37 campaign, which may have stretched the truth, and ended with the Yes on 37 campaign holding a press conference Friday with nonprofit groups that was quickly erased from existence once it was debunked by the mainstream media.
The goal of Proposition 37 is to require labels on foods and food products that were produced using genetic engineering (GE), with some exemptions. Chief among the claims of proponents are that consumers have a “right to know” these details about how their food was produced, and that these foods carry health and environmental risks that go beyond conventionally-produced food. It would also prohibit labeling such foods as “natural,” and due to ambiguities in the wording of the proposition, the same may be true for processed foods that do not contain genetically engineered content. The Yes on 37 campaign is primarily funded by companies that sell competing foods that could gain from altering how these products are labeled. Continue reading “The FDA, The FBI, and Prop 37” →

Interviews: Getting the facts on Proposition 37

Three days ago, I announced that I would be interviewing the proponents and opponents of California Proposition 37, which if passed would require labels on foods made from genetically engineered crops. There has been a lot of debate about this issue, for as long as genetically engineered crops have been around.
I participated in a chat last week that Mercury News put on, which had both Stacy Malkan and Kathy Fairbanks answering questions and debating each other, and it was pretty hectic, disjointed, and somewhat uncivil. It didn’t answer any of the questions that I had about the proposition – so I was inspired to contact the two campaigns to do an interview for the Biofortified Blog. Stacy Malkan agreed to represent the Yes on 37 campaign, and Kathy Fairbanks agreed to represent the No on 37 campaign. I’m happy to say that the interviews, recorded on Monday and Tuesday, have now been [minimally] edited and are now up for you all to enjoy. Continue reading “Interviews: Getting the facts on Proposition 37” →

Proposition 37 interviews – call for questions!

Readers, I have some great news! I have just heard back from the two opposing campaigns for and against proposition 37, and they have agreed to do phone interviews for the Biofortified Blog. With a little more than a week to go until the election, however, this means that we will be doing these interviews right away. I will be conducting these interviews about the proposition on Monday, tomorrow, but I would like to give you a chance to submit a question for either side and I will consider adding them to my list.
Readers of this blog should already be pretty familiar with the basic idea of the proposition, which is an effort to require labels for genetically engineered food of certain types, and to ban the use of “natural” terms on such foods. Continue reading “Proposition 37 interviews – call for questions!” →