- When asked what they thought the word natural should mean on a label, about 85% of consumers said it should mean no pesticides were used to grow it and that it contained no artificial ingredients or genetically modified ingredients.
I wonder if those 85 percent of consumers realize exactly how much food we'd have left without pesticides, "artificial ingredients" or genetic modification.
The problem is one of labeling: considering how much news coverage is given over to nutritional data, lawsuits, calories, HFCS and all the rest, it's not unreasonable for the general public to expect that "natural" means something when placed on a label. Naive? ...yeah, a little, but only if you're deeply cynical.
the Organic Consumers Association and others have long argued that the definition of "Organic" has been gerrymandered to the point where it largely means "higher-profit." Having spoken with several farmers, most of them don't grow organic produce unless they have a long-term relationship with one of the major agricultural buyers (cargill etc) because it's a definition that doesn't govern the most "naturally grown" produce anyway (and because it's a tricky label to get and keep, much trickier for a small producer than a large one).
The problem is one of scope: Ask a consumer if he'd consider an apple harvested from a tree sprayed with neem oil organic and after you explained neem oil, he'd likely say "yes." Ask him if he'd say the same thing about Alar and, after you explained alar, he'd likely say "no." 'k, fine. Now ask him if aphid control using soapy water is "natural" and he'll likely say "yes." Ask him if aphid control using methylisothiozolinone and phenoxyethanol is "natural" and he'll look at you funny.
Then you explain to him it's the same thing.
It's not an easy question, and not one that should be treated flippantly. I've seen no good solutions proposed by either side - I'm fond of food that gets processed less and would like to know I'm buying it before I open it up. Most natural corn chip? Fritos, at "corn", salt, oil. Least natural-looking chip? Fritos, at "what is this bizarre thing you extruded from household siding."
Still, SEE CHEERLEADERS BRAVING THE ELEMENTS!
Check it out: Corn, corn oil, salt.
- According to popular lore, Fritos hail from San Antonio, Texas, where Elmer Doolin, who apparently had an obsession with making a snack based on corn that would not go stale too quickly, found a local man who had deep-fried corn snacks made from an extrusion of masa. Doolin bought the man's patent and recipe, and with the help of his mother perfected the recipe in his own kitchen (in much the same way that he later invented Cheetos). He began selling Fritos in 1932 under the moniker of the Frito Corporation. Original Fritos ingredients are limited to whole corn, corn oil, and salt.
Same ingredients list for corn-nuts. I love them so.
I'm of the opinion that GMO stands to have far more of an impact on agriculture and agribusiness than consumers. I also firmly believe that the larger magnates have zero interest in preserving consumer choice or nutrition and GMO allows them to leverage market position at the expense of small producers (what's left of them). From an individual health and nutrition standpoint I don't feel that non-GMO offers much advantage over GMO; quite the contrary in certain circumstances. However, I believe that the average consumer's paranoia about GMO is beneficial to small business and sustainable farming and, as such, renders GMO labeling a net positive.
TL; DR - I think it's bullshit but I support it for benevolently machiavellian reasons.
GMO's stand to improve and save millions of lives in the third world by introducing staple crop varieties that provide nutrients that are lacking in existing diets. Probably won't benefit you or I, and won't be developed by big agri business but they are coming.
People say that, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it. Golden rice, for example - it's been available to subsistence farmers for ten years now but Syngenta hasn't even gotten it approved for commercial distribution yet. Meanwhile, farmers have bred 'stable crop varieties' for tens of thousands of years by selecting characteristics appropriate to the local microclimate... something that is explicitly forbidden with GMO crops. Meanwhile, what GMO provides so far is "more vitamin A" - be it through golden rice or magic bananas. Here's the hitch: a bowl of golden rice provides "60% of a child's daily vitamin A requirement." Roll back the numbers and you get 3000 IU of vitamin A in a serving of golden rice.
But in 100g of sweet potato you get 19,000 IU.
In 100g of carrots you get 17,000 IU.
In 100g of kale you get 13,000 IU.
In 100g of butternut squash you get 11,000 IU.
In 100g of mutherfucking romaine lettuce you get 8000 IU.
So on the one hand, we have "feed the malnourished of the world two bowls of golden rice a day." On the other hand, we have "feed them any goddamn vegetables they can grow." Meanwhile, someone growing butternut squash can save out their seeds and grow more butternut squash - probably on that 8x10 square of dirt they call home. "Golden rice?" Requires a rice paddy.
The problem becomes "we can solve the world's malnutrition problem through golden rice" instead of "holy shit our problems are as basic as providing nutritional education and a modicum of support for subsistence farming."
But Syngenta and Monsanto don't make any money from that.
That's a bit of a mischaracterization of the work. The goal was to have a drop in replacement for a crop the population already grew, as well as to examine the technical side of the problem and see: Hey? These crazy mutant plants? If it's possible, what do we actually need to do to fix their nutritional deficits?
It's one face of the many sided die of crop trade-offs: What grows in harsh climates? What takes care of the soil? What combination is nutritionally optimal? What gives the biggest yield? What needs the fewest chemicals? The least oversight?
When I was still trying to figure out what problems I wanted to do research on, I asked a division director of LBNL a question: "Why would I ever bother with biofuels or plant engineering when they are abound with cases of research miss-sold and debatably worse than the status quo?"
His response was: Yes, much of the tech today has fallen short of its proposed benefits. Yes, the research community failed to engage the public, and now GMOs are a PR nightmare. Yes, the corn lobby inappropriately pushed ethanol to the forefront.
But the technology in the biosciences pipeline has taken this criticism into account and tried to work with it. On a basic sciences level, genomics researchers are now looking into the heterogeneity of crop genes to find the bits that give polyculture its kick. Biofuels researchers are producing non-ethanol mixtures that don't corrode engines. And plant engineers are making progress re-engineering nitrogen fixation, drought resistance, and yes, better pest resistance, too.
Some of the problems are purely technical. Some are cultural. Golden rice?
Initially, it had poor nutrient yield, but now the barrier to its adoption is its color; people in east-asian countries associated it with the grain they feed their livestock.
Long term. Maybe it will succeed. Maybe it will flop. But the ulterior motive of these projects is to progress the molecular picture of these organisms and transform random mutagenesis / cross breeding into solving a biological problem from first principles, the same way every other engineering does it.
One last snipe:
- Meanwhile, farmers have bred 'stable crop varieties' for tens of thousands of years by selecting characteristics appropriate to the local microclimate... something that is explicitly forbidden with GMO crops.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of where the GMO conversation has gone. "Interspecies Mutant Monsters" is a far cry from "we put in two more cogs into the thousand-gene metabolic machine". Sadly, the recent generation of environmentalists have decided to label all transgenic plants as the bane of agriculture and the last solution to any problem.
It's a direct characterization of the work. "When all you have is a hammer, the world is made of nails." You list solution after solution after solution that can be approached with genetic engineering without acknowledging that genetic engineering is, in no case, the best solution to the problem.
You also act as if the populace of the world suddenly went "HOLY FUCK FRANKENFOOD" when all these luckless biosciences companies were trying to do was save the world. Ockham's Razor does not like your reductionism; prior to Jenny mcCarthy and the CIA, vaccines were A-OK and they actively involve injecting pathogens into your bloodstream. We're dealing with more than a "PR nightmare" we're dealing with selfish and impure actions by large corporations that view the subjects of their benevolence with apathy at best and ill will at worst.
The Irish potato famine was caused by monoculture. The approach to solving the Irish potato famine does not involve breeding a more disease-resistant strain of potato, the approach involves planting a few dozen more varieties of potatoes. So whether or not "rice gruel" is a balanced part of a basic 3rd world breakfast, "rice gruel and a little sweet potato" solves the problem more handily than "Golden Rice Gruel, a Syngenta Product, All Rights Reserved, Void Where Prohibited."
Well yes, it's a discussion about the problems and benefits of genetic engineering. An entirely different topic within the US are farming laws, which you have written, and I agree, an even bigger monster than genetic engineering cannot and should not solve. Coupled with that are global trade laws, water rights, and run-off regulations. You've also got the straight: "How, as a farmer, should you plow, sow, and grow a patch of land?" All of which must be solved first, and independent of figuring out how to get the most, year after year, out of that patch of land.
And that's not even getting to what you do with the crop once it's been harvested.
My point isn't to sympathize with big-ag, it's to defend technology that still holds a lot of promise. Hell, Golden Rice isn't even controlled by a for-profit nowadays.
- We're dealing with more than a "PR nightmare" we're dealing with selfish and impure actions by large corporations that view the subjects of their benevolence with apathy at best and ill will at worst.
You're also dealing with thousands upon thousands of independent researchers at hundreds of universities across the world. You might as well say all medical research is bunk because pharmaceutical companies profit off the pill in the end. I'm not exactly sure what the anti-vax reference is for, though. Jenny McCarthy's sole scientific reference was retracted long ago and the ill will of the CIA has little to do with the medical merit of vaccines.
- So whether or not "rice gruel" is a balanced part of a basic 3rd world breakfast, "rice gruel and a little sweet potato" solves the problem more handily than "Golden Rice Gruel, a Syngenta Product, All Rights Reserved, Void Where Prohibited."
That is also a valid solution. But here's a word from a researcher on the matter:
- Everybody in the field agrees that the ideal solution is for people to diversify their diet and to simply eat well. However that’s exactly the crux of the matter: People are simply too poor and in some cases they do not know enough about nutrition, either. This means the question is a bit akin to the purported suggestion by Marie Antoinette to “let them eat cake” – if they could they’d be probably more than happy to do so. While it is a horrible thing that millions and millions of people still live in poverty, there’s no denying that this situation will only be solved slowly over the coming 1-2 decades (or at least I very much hope it will be solved). This leaves those who cannot afford a sufficiently diverse diet out in the cold for the time being. Clearly, they deserve our attention and the help society can give.
There's also a comment with regards to hammer nail:
- This means what can be an optimal mix of the various interventions in one country may not be the best use of resources in another. However, this makes it the more important to have as many different tools available as possible, so decision-makers in each country can use the strengths of one intervention in one setting to complement the strengths of another intervention in another.
Look, I also think it's dumb as fuck that modern Western civilization has basically thrown out all agricultural history in the name of bushels. And yeah, BP funds biofuel research. And, yeah, Monsanto representatives attend synbio conferences. But to counter your idiom with another, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
So this has grown into a massive scope involving all sorts of subjects that were not initially at issue. The discussion went like this:
Q) Where are you with GMO labeling?
A) I'm for it for all the wrong reasons.
Q) But GMO will save the world someday.
A) GMO purports to save the world but there are deep issues with implementation and intent that, thus far, have prevented it from saving the world, despite a ten year head start.
Q) But there are clearly benefits to genetic engineering.
A) That does not change the fact that those benefits have yet to be realized, a telling failing.
So here we are, back again: your comment is basically a repeat of "But there are clearly benefits to genetic engineering."
Right. No contest. Not my beef, never was. My strongest criticism, so far, was "From an individual health and nutrition standpoint I don't feel that non-GMO offers much advantage over GMO; quite the contrary in certain circumstances. " Take out the double negatives and you actually see support for GMO.
So from my perspective, the discussion hasn't changed: GMO labeling is useful because the GMO industry is, at best, misguided. Nothing said about the science of GMO - this is ALL ABOUT the politics of GMO. Which is where this statement comes from:
- prior to Jenny mcCarthy and the CIA, vaccines were A-OK and they actively involve injecting pathogens into your bloodstream.
You wondered what that was about. My point is that Jenny McCarthy muddled the discussion on vaccines in the developed world by giving Andrew Wakefield a platform and now all these rich white women are spreading the measles. My point is that the CIA muddled the discussion on vaccines by using vaccination as a front to hunt for Bin Laden and now the Taliban is executing WHO workers attempting to wipe out polio in Afghanistan.
I started this discussion with a statement about politics. You and cgod attempted to inject science into it, and I have maintained (successfully, in my opinion) that the political situation overshadows the scientific situation. I have absolutely no dog in the race as far as the science; my argument is now, has been and shall be that the political motivations and ramifications of GMO have far more to do with profit than they do with humanitarian efforts.
I wholeheartedly agree that the politics of GMO are a mess. I don't think the incentives are going the right direction for mankind to realize the full benefits of this technology. If big agri business was smart they would be developing things like strawberry cantaloupe rather than pesticide resistant wheat, just to gain public acepptance of GMO products.
- So this has grown into a massive scope involving all sorts of subjects that were not initially at issue.
Tangents are my weak point. >_<
I just take a bit of annoyance to the claim that GMO research is all profiteering when the aforementioned Syngenta doesn't stand to make a dollar anyways.
And therein lies the problem: I was arguing against GMO advocacy and you saw me arguing against GMO research despite the fact that I semi-explicitly argued for it.
Syngenta is not explicitly profiting from sales of Golden Rice, true. I'm not sure you can argue they're doing it for purely altruistic reasons. they're getting good PR out of it. Which, when you're talking about a company that makes half its money selling pesticides to the developing world, ain't nuthin'.
Not allowing patents on living things would benefit small producers more, and be a greater net positive. I doubt people being paranoid about GMOs makes that any less likely, the only time the average consumer cares about the state of IP laws is when their favorite torrent tracker goes down, but it surely doesn't help.
I dont think the comment you make is very reasonable @flagamuffin . It comes across as attempting to discredit people for just wanting an honest explanation of what exactly their food is. In this situation, poking fun at ignorance kinda makes you the asshat. There is no common knowledge of food production in this country.
Knowing that, how is it even okay to package and claim an item as food, yet not have any real responsibility to disclose to the consumer exactly wtf is in the package? It doesn't help the cause when those same companies fight against having to label the alleged food.
My stance is that any item sold as food needs to have its place of origin, absolute and explicitly clear list of ingredients, and methods of production on the package, label, etc. All citizens should be educated in currently used methods of producing food as well. I don't see how that's unreasonable for food. I also don't see how it's unreasonable to ask with all of this technology that we work on methods of production which is as close to nature as we can get and still feed the population.
Agreed, I worked for a short while in a restaurant that ran completely on organic and locally sourced food. It's expensive, and you have to keep a rotating and ever-changing menu, but it's definitely worth it. Plus, I live in a bit of a hippy town, and the market for a place like that is huge, even if it is pricey.
Yeah, I try and only buy whole foods from as close to local as I can get or from sources that I've grown to trust through community ( items such as yam, plantains, etc.) Eventually, you have to make a decision to buy something you don't really know the origins or method of production for simply because of how pervasive the established industry is. That's not fucking cool and it upsets me.
Agreed, and it doesn't help, too, that programs like SNAP and WIC make it harder to do so as well. WIC specifically states in a few cases that "organic" foods aren't allowed.
Thankfully, we've got a couple farmer's markets that accept SNAP.
Being both a chef and social worker gives me the weirdest perspective on these things, but a lot of people overlook how hard it is to eat healthy, even with food benefits.
@jackthebandit I agree with your stance of labeling and about the transparency of the ingredients on the food we consume. However, even if you make such labels easily understood it is up to the public to take this said knowledge and put it into good use. Educate the public , change the demand , change the country. Simple as that.
Hey just an FYI Herestolife and JackTheBandit - shoutouts need an @ after the name and before, like a nice little @-@ sandwich.
Also, usernames are case sensitive, so a shout-out to @jackthebandit@ won't work, but the one above does.