One Last Time: GMOs

It seems I’ve written about GMO misinformation and false beliefs about once a year including One More Time: GMOs in August 2016 and more recently, GMO Myths Persist early last year. I’ve also used GMOs as one example of how manufacturers and advertisers use labeling such as no-GMOs as a proxy for purity of their product to play on the gullibility of the grocery-buying public – even in cases where there was never a GMO alternative on the market such as tomatoes, oranges/orange juice, green beans and peanut butter. (I like some of these products, but the label is merely a scare tactic, and I feel like I am supporting a bunch of liars when I buy their products.)

I’m sure that’s why one of my loyal readers sent me a short email with a link to this story to get me fired up again.

The message is simple and straightforward, “With the quality of arable land declining and seawater encroaching on fertile cropland, researchers are trying to find a way to make crops grow in seawater.” One possible solution is to develop salt-tolerant crops through gene editing to deal with the fact that a rise in sea levels is beginning to contaminate rivers and the aquifers used to irrigate fields, “particularly those low-lying areas close to vast river deltas.” It is estimated that excess salt is causing annual crop loss around the world at the astounding level of $27 billion.

Scientists have been working for decades using traditional breeding methods to develop a viable variety of rice to grow in saltier water, but the more likely solution will involve some genetic modification. Some researchers are going so far as to try to modify crops with “the goal of soon growing them in floating farms placed in sea-flooded plains or anchored directly in the ocean” – hydroponics on an immense scale using salt water.

Growing rice or corn on the ocean seems like science fiction, but as farmland is disappearing, unless someone does something soon, people will starve.

A major roadblock to any such action is the continuing resistance to anything GMO. This website lists countries that allow GMO farming and those that ban it, but may allow the products to be imported. “Although many EU countries do not grow GMOs, Europe is one of the world’s biggest consumers of them.” It’s obvious that resistance is primarily political, from activists and those consumers that eagerly buy into their message. It is “generally driven not by science, as the independent science organizations in every major country have come out with public statements that GM products are safe.” 

It comes down to critical thinking. The disappearance of arable farmland is blamed on climate change, and people will scream about the US backing out of the Paris Accords as science denial. On the other hand, many of those same people will parrot the anti-GMO propaganda without any concern for real science. 

In the end which is the deadlier decision, the one that shows a disregard for the welfare of your fellow human beings: a.) refusing to wear a mask in public or b.) blindly supporting the anti-GMO activists whose endorsement of a false purity may lead to mass starvation? 

Food Labels are Confusing

It began with a local health-news report that led me to the Consumer Reports website. The problem: Food labels are confusing. Not all claims and seals on food packaging can be trusted. 

Consumer Reports wants to help shoppers by making sense of some of the more common labels. But the labels they refer to are the ones designed to lure uninformed shoppers, enticing them to pay more for imaginary benefits like all-natural, non-GMO and organic.

I’ve written before about the science behind GMO foods and organic growing practices. Genetic modification acts as a short cut to the crossbreeding that has been practiced in farming for thousands of years. In some cases it will be the only way to save certain crops from going extinct due to diseases or pests. Organic produce has been tested and found to be marginally cleaner than traditionally grown crops, but if you wash your fruits and vegetables before preparing them, as everyone should, it makes no difference. (See the links for a fuller explanation or enter GMO or Organic in the search box in the upper left of this screen.)

Consumer Reports lists 6 seals of certification rated from fair to excellent: Grass Fed, Certified Humane, Animal Welfare, Non-GMO Project Verified, United Egg Producers, and USDA Organic. A deeper dive tells more about the certification process of each. For example, United Egg Producers Certified is rated fair overall for being very good in terms of verification but poor for animal welfare. Three labels are rated poor: Natural or All Natural, No Antibiotics, Non-GMO.

At a local grocery store I found seven different varieties of large eggs. Prices ranged from $1.09 for one dozen generic eggs in a gray container to $5.79 for a dozen labeled as organic and pasture raised. Priced between them were the cage free; cage free brown; free range; and the no-hormone, no antibiotic eggs. Apparently people will pay five times more for eggs to be reassured that the hens were leading a happy life, frolicking in a pasture. Of course, there is no label to tell how the hens are treated after they reach their 5- to 7-year period of peak production.

These decisions are mostly made by people who have never seen a chicken, pig or cow close up or visited a farm. They get their news from websites like this one that claims “rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities…that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures…” Each animal, according to them, is a “social, feeling individual capable of experiencing pleasure. The vast majority, however, are only familiar with deprivation, fear, and pain.” (Perhaps they called in an animal psychic or Dr. Doolittle to confirm this statement.)

Another site, with a more realistic and less of a concentration camp concept of farms, contradicts the factual part of the above statements. “About 98% of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (America’s Diverse Family Farms, 2018 Edition).”

 Is this another form of virtue signaling, paying almost $6 per dozen for eggs because we care so much about chickens we will never meet? It’s no wonder that earlier this month the headline read: Consumer debt reaches record-high of $14 trillion.” As long as the cows, pigs and chickens are happy, what’s five dollars here and there?

Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the seals and claims to help you understand the meaning behind them, Consumer Reports should have published the fact that most of those are simply marketing tactics playing on the egos, guilt and fears of consumers following the popular sentiment of the day.

What comes in the next issue, how to buy the right saddle for your unicorn?

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

GMO Myths Persist

Despite the strong scientific, economic and humanitarian arguments in their favor, some individuals and organizations continue to spread a fear of genetically modified foods. Look up “GMO Warnings” to get a list of websites spreading the gospel.

This one is representative, promoting a book by an anti-GMO author. “In a study in the early 1990's rats were [force-]fed genetically modified (GM) tomatoes…. Several of the rats developed stomach lesions and seven out of forty died within two weeks.” At the time “agency scientists warned that GM foods in general might create unpredicted allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems” (emphasis in the original).

What they fail to mention is that GMO tomatoes were never available to market. A little more than two years ago the Hunt Company was scorned for their “No GMOs in sight” marketing campaign. Hundreds of “consumers, farmers and scientists criticizing the company for fear mongering and pandering to ‘the superstitions of misinformed extremists.’” That Forbes article goes on to explain that all the food we eat is technically genetically modified from their ancestors, either by nature, by human selection, by crossbreeding or by genetic engineering. All such modification is capable of producing favorable or unfavorable, even dangerous characteristics. But we can’t be afraid of all food!

The economic and humanitarian arguments go hand in hand to some extent. As the population of the earth continues to increase, the need for food increases. The amount of land available to raise that food is not increasing. In fact more will be used for other activities like homes and highways for that growing population. For the past hundred years, the ability to keep up with population growth has come not by throwing more resources at it, but by using science and technology. GMO is just another option.

The latest effort comes from the University of Illinois as shown in this headline: “Scientists engineer shortcut for photosynthetic glitch, boost crop growth by 40 percent.” By making the photosynthetic process in plants, their ability to convert sunlight to energy, more efficient, the principal investigator believes, "We could feed up to 200 million additional people with the calories lost to photorespiration in the Midwestern U.S. each year."

But the people promoting their books, their websites and their products don’t seem to care about those 200 million going hungry. They are more than willing to promote and prey upon the fear of science among people who are not starving and who can be easily convinced to be unnecessarily fussy and fearful about food. It’s been going on for some time and has become even more intense using the speed and reach of the Internet along with the growing appetite for movements motivated to save ignorant neighbors by forcing change.

A second economic argument is that some of our favorite foods may be disappearing too rapidly to be saved by any means less efficient than genetic engineering. I wrote in March 2017 about the problems orange growers face with citrus greening.

There is also a concern about bananas. This article explains that the bananas we buy in the store are sterile and produced via cloning. They lack the genetic variation needed to develop immunity to pests or diseases. 

The need is clear; the science is clear. Without constant improvement in farming technology, the world will not be able to support current levels of population growth. Without genetic engineering people will starve. About 90% or more of cotton, corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are currently genetically modified. People die from food contamination, not from genetic engineering. 

 Meanwhile, entities like the Institute for Responsible Technology and several others seem to have teamed up with the marketing departments of major food companies to sustain the fear and to use that fear to sell us products under the false, unfounded and misguided assumption that we are doing what’s healthier and what’s right for our families.

Being Afraid of the Wrong Things

A few days ago, a headline appeared in Science Daily: “Why do we love bees but hate wasps?” It’s an interesting question and the reason seems totally emotional.

“Both bees and wasps are two of humanity's most ecologically and economically important organisms. They both pollinate our flowers and crops, but wasps also regulate populations of crop pests and insects that carry human diseases.” But their survey showed that almost everyone sees bees as the good guys and wasps as scary and unwelcome. Although, both are known to sting humans, bees are associated with honey and wasps only with stinging. The researchers assert that this universal antipathy “is most likely due to a low-level interest in nature and a lack of knowledge about the benefits wasps bring to our planet's health and function.”

One example of the pest control aspect was a hornworm I found on one of my tomato plants the other day. It was no longer eating leaves because it had become a meal for many wasp larvae. Wasps are our friends.

Wasps are one example of things we should not be afraid of, but the fear of wasps doesn’t have a devastating effect on the future, beyond the fact that all pollinators should be encouraged to thrive in the interest of our future food supply. But there are other examples that are far more crucial.

One is nuclear power. People are scared of nuclear power. They hear of a nuclear power plant and picture a mushroom cloud, a Chernobyl-like meltdown or a disaster from an earthquake or tsunami. This attitude put the brakes on the development of nuclear power in the US 40 years ago. The German government decided to shut down nuclear plants and revert to coal in the face of “mass anti-nuclear protests…in the wake [of the] Fukushima event. Hence, Germans are giving up a source of non-polluting energy with a much smaller physical footprint than wind or solar. Back at home, as Americans have seen firsthand major technological advances in computers, telephones, transportation, and so many other areas, they have been stuck on the assumption that nuclear technology would have been stagnant since the 1970s. Had we adopted a different attitude then, it’s quite likely that the majority of our energy problems today would have been solved.

Another example is GMOs. Last month I wrote about the effects unreasonable fears of GMOs have on the world’s food supply. Americans are demanding labeling on packaging, so they know what they are eating. In Europe the government agencies confirm the safety of GMOs, while public opinion prevents their spread. People are starving in poorer countries for lack of food while the rich and middle class in the richer countries fuss about imaginary dangers.

Finally, add the idea of irradiating food for safety. From the FDA: “Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change the taste, texture, or appearance of food.” The technology “improves the safety and extends the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects.” It doesn’t make food glow in the dark; it makes it safer to eat. 

But when people hear anything that sounds like radiation, they panic; unaware perhaps, that all the sunshine they were soaking up on vacation a few weeks ago is also radiation. The vast majority wants it labeled, just in case. Then, when people avoid it and it doesn’t sell, we are all exposed to less safe food!

All these fears stem from the same source, captured in the above article about wasps, “a low-level interest in” science in general “and a lack of knowledge.”

The real cause for concern as we move further into the 21^st Century should be how public opinion will continue to work against public welfare. When we allow the "activists" and fear-mongers to keep winning, where does it lead?

Fear of Science and Technology

Last week I attended a presentation on GMOs by a Purdue University professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. He was very knowledgeable with impressive credentials, but he said things some people didn’t want to hear. 

The primary point of contention was that a vast majority (near 90%) of scientists agree that genetically modified plants are safe to eat, but only 37% of the general public agree. Somehow when a majority of scientists are cited as agreeing with man-made global warming, everyone is so convinced that they will try to cut off any further discussion; they shudder to think of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement; but when a majority of scientists say that GMOs are safe to eat, they must all be working for Monsanto. 

The difference is that climate change is not as scary as eating something potentially harmful. The resistance arises from a fear of something that sounds very unnatural.

However, the speaker pointed out that farms, and agriculture in general, is not natural. Even in backyard gardens, people remove the weeds that naturally grow to plant seeds that have been developed through thousands of years of selection. As nature caused genetic modifications in plants, people preserved those with the best characteristics: size, juiciness, drought-resistance. Humans have been eating and enjoying unnatural foods for millennia (fresh from the garden).

Furthermore, the introduction of plant science has enabled great leaps forward in agriculture, allowing farmers around the world to feed the growing population, now 7.6 billion. For example, the average yield of corn per acre in the US in 1900 was 25.9 bushels per acre. That increased to 77.4 by 1965 and to 137.0 by 2000. The yield in 2017 was 176.6 bushels per acre. The application of science increased the amount of corn by almost 7 times when it would have been impossible to increase the acreage.

But the myth exists that natural automatically equates to good and healthy, and promoters of food and supplements use that to our overall disadvantage.  Another glaring example of this came across the Internet a few weeks back.

A product called kraton is being aggressively promoted as a possible solution to the opioid epidemic. They say it is harmless and no more addictive than coffee. But there is “no reliable evidence that kratom can help addicts safely wean themselves off of heroin or prescription opioids, or that it offers any other therapeutic benefit, according to the FDA, which has issued a public health warning about its potential for addiction."

Various scientific studies show that it causes withdrawal symptoms similar to those of opioids, and it has been linked to episodes of psychosis, seizures, and to deaths, along with mild, moderate, and life-threatening medical outcomes reported in 660 phone calls to U.S. poison control centers from 2010 through 2015.“The CDC has issued four reports of Salmonella infection outbreaks linked to contaminated products.”

But here is how it’s promoted. It is marketed as a dietary supplement that grows naturally in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea with friendly sounding brand names like Botany Bay, Enhance Your Life and Divinity. They claim it helps overcome opioid addiction and withdrawal, lowers pain and blood pressure, prevents cancer and reduces nerve damage caused by strokes. (There is no evidence for any of these claims.)

Meanwhile Americans continue to buy it as the industry association fights government attempts to take it off the market. Again it’s a matter of valid science vs. perceptions, of critical thinking vs. feelings. It all comes down to that persistent misconception that natural stands for guaranteed goodness. (The Salmonella that contaminated some samples was also natural!)

Are We Poisoning Our Kids - Again?

Now here is a headline to get your attention: “Weed Killer in $289 Million Cancer Verdict Found in Oat Cereal and Granola Bars.” The story goes on to tell how EWG (Environmental Working Group) scientists found that almost three-fourths of their samples of oat products, including children’s cereals, contained glyphosate (the chemical in the weed killer, RoundUp) at levels higher than they consider “protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety.” 

This news came out last week and, in a fit of confirmation bias, social media picked it up and ran with it. It gave the food purists a chance to say, “I told you so,” while giving the environmental groups and natural news outlets a chance to scare parents with another threat to the health of their children.

Another website announced: “Kellogg's cereals found to be contaminated with Monsanto's cancer-causing glyphosate.” They went on to call the situation “horrific,” “health-destroying” and “shocking,” noting, “a research division of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ingredient as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’” 

In the face of this panic, NBC tried to be a calming influence in light of those “startling headlines” about RoundUp in cereals “swamping social media and scaring parents.” Their headline read: “A report by an environmental group disregards accepted evidence about safe levels of the chemical.” They point out that EWG has been waging an on-going campaign against the chemical and that the study making headlines “was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.” That means other scientists had no opportunity to review methods and findings before publication, checking that they followed valid scientific procedures and that their conclusions are trustworthy.

NBC goes on to remind readers that both the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have said glyphosate probably doesn’t cause cancer in humans and to remind them as well that jury rulings aren’t required to consider the scientific evidence and often don’t. Finally, it’s an accepted fact in toxicology that the dosage makes the poison – during the same week the media featured a story about how too much water can be harmful, and don't forget that too much sunlight also causes cancer.

WebMD does not deny the presence of the chemical but quotes toxicologists as saying, “a single serving of most of the foods [EWG] tested, eaten each day for a lifetime, would cause just one additional case of cancer in every million people.” The danger is extremely low and “definitely wouldn’t outweigh the health benefits of eating oats.” 

Many toxicologists argue that the WHO’s finding of “probably carcinogenic” is particularly cautious and leaves much room for doubt. But this opinion is a staple in any anti-RoundUp publication.

It’s important to note that these last two sources don’t have an ax to grind with Monsanto or its products, whereas the first two come into the discussion (and research) with an established bias. (It’s like inviting vegetarians to a bacon tasting event.) Furthermore the first was posted by the very group that ran the (not-peer-reviewed) tests and the second was posted almost three years ago (Thursday, September 10, 2015). They have been pushing this agenda for a long time.

Very little research and critical thinking can avert the panic. These stories will continue to crop up from time to time and are sure to spread now that so many people primarily get their news from dubious sources like FaceBook.

Most people don’t remember the headline: “Hazardous Chemical In Children’s Cereal.” About 18 months ago some were also outraged about chemicals in cereals our children eat. They wanted this carcinogen removed even though it is found in toothpaste, mouthwash, shampoo and cosmetics but has been declared safe by the FDA. It was not glyphosate; it was Trisodium Phosphate. The website said they had been warning about this danger for over 3 years.

When in doubt, they resurrect a scary story about poison cereal!

Food Labeling

It’s interesting how many food items are being relabeled to take advantage of all the misinformation in the news and on social media. They label food as containing no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). That simply means it contains sugar instead.  One is no better or worse for you than the other. If something is labeled as containing no sugar, it’s likely to contain an artificial sweetener. There are all kinds of rumors about how dangerous artificial sweeteners are. Some are labeled as no sugar added, but may have more natural sugar than a comparable product without the label. Everyone should easily be able to figure out that these special labels make little difference to the actual wholesomeness of the food. So why do the food companies make such an effort?

Apparently, it’s because most people don’t go to the trouble to figure this out.  The labels are shortcuts allowing them to follow their superstition of choice – yes, superstition. They are no different than the Salem Witch Trials except no one is killed, but they use the same tactics of mass hysteria.  Someone or some group pick up the chant of avoiding sugar or HFCS or artificial anything or GMOs or gluten (for most healthy people) and people choose to ignore evidence and climb on board the Superstition Express. 

One of the worst cases is the anti-GMO movement. The unreasonable opposition to GMOs starves people and adds to climate change. The promise of increased yields from smaller fields along with reduced reliance on pesticides and fertilizers supports the effort to reduce greenhouse gases and should be embraced by anyone concerned about climate change, but they pick and choose their cause. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, calls the stance against GMOs both anti-science and immoral emphasizing the absence of evidence that these products have hurt anyone or have been a detriment to the environment –“no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” It’s a distraction and political football that keeps good food from hungry people in less-developed countries.

The typical reaction is referred to in this article as the “healthy halo.” Food companies have found that certain labels elicit a positive response, regardless of logic, making consumers more likely to buy and more likely to pay more. To test this, researchers from Cornell University asked 115 shoppers to give their opinions of the value of snack foods based only on their labels. “People thought foods labeled ‘organic’ were more nutritious, lower in fat, and higher in fiber than the ‘regular’ foods, and were willing to pay up to 23.4 percent more for the food labeled as organic.” The difference was in the labels only: all the study participants were eating the same foods. The ink is cheap and the ability to increase the price by over 20 percent merely by adding one word to the label would be a marketing homerun for any company! And millions of superstitious Americans let them get away with it.

The manufacturers don’t care. And if it gives them an advantage in the market, they will even endorse any error or misconception their customers may have. It’s really sad.

Food Production Differences

Since I read this information about different methods of food production on a four-year-old posting, it should be fairly well known.  Unfortunately forces are at work, misrepresenting and politicizing what should be straightforward, honest information.  Let’s get back to the basics.

There are a number of ways to develop seeds used to grow our food:  Conventional breeding, mutagenesis and Genetic Engineering (GE).  

The first can be split into two categories.  Purists prefer heirloom vegetables.  “Most heirlooms come from seed that has been handed down for generations in a particular region or area, hand-selected by gardeners for a special trait.”  Usually they were developed over 50 years ago in the early days of commercial breeding.  They tend to have relatively stable characteristics from generation to generation.

Hybrid veggies on the other hand are the result of intentional cross-pollination of two different plant varieties to try to capture the best traits of each such as bigger size, earlier fruit bearing or better disease resistance.  Cross-pollination may also happen in nature without human intervention.  “The process of developing a hybrid typically requires many years.”  Unlike heirlooms, if you save the seeds from hybrids, the new plants will not retain the same advantageous traits as the original and may show other unexpected characteristics.

Technically, all seeds have been modified over many thousands of years as early farmers collected seeds from the best plants in an attempt to improve flavors and yield.  (A quick Internet search shows pictures of how unappetizing these ancient crops really were.)

Genetically Engineered (GE) crops are well known due to a bad reputation invented and spread by non-scientists and fear-mongers, most of whom have an interest in promoting organic products or raising funds for their environmental projects.  These fears are further spread on social media by the uninformed and are totally unfounded.  

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states very clearly, based on hundreds of studies:  “Credible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.”  They explain that traditional cross-breeding also introduces a number of genes into a plant, and both are done for the same reasons. No person has ever been harmed by eating GE foods; there is no link to cancer.  They increase yields and lower pesticide applications, which is good for the environment.  Golden Rice, a GE crop, was developed to reduce blindness in Third-World children that don’t get enough vitamin A in their diets.

The other way to modify seeds is called mutagenesis, “wherein plants are subjected to radiation treatments or doused in toxic chemicals that randomly scrambles genes to produce new traits.”  They then plant the seeds to see what comes ups and keep trying until there seems to be a desirable improvement.  “Despite the fact that this process is much less precise than genetic modification…mutagenesis is unregulated and widely used.”  

Mutagenesis sounds much scarier and haphazard than GE, yet it receives little attention, has no one screaming for labels “so we know what we are eating,” has the potential for more unintended genetic changes and can be sold as organic!  Both are deemed safe for human and animal consumption.

So why the emphasis on and fear around GE crops? Despite having been proven false over and over, some continue to warn of dangers.  And we never see news reports that yet another study reaffirms the safety of GE crops.  Others, who have a direct stake in organics, call for GMO labeling supposedly calling for clarification, but really hoping the misinformed public will erroneously see them as warning labels and needlessly spend more money on organic food.  With a coordinated campaign and a few ardent followers, it’s easy to scare people into making foolish choices.

Some research suggests that the environment, year-to-year temperature changes and location, “has more impact on the plant’s genome than whether it was genetically modified or conventionally bred.” In reality, food safety should be based on the product itself rather than the method used to develop the variety.

But this is what happens when rumors abound, when advocates push an agenda until it achieves a “common knowledge” or urban myth status, and when Americans don’t exercise the critical thinking so crucial to survival in an increasingly complex society.  How do you modify your behavior when you realize that no one else is looking out for your best interests?

Deceptive Truth

Forget about fake news and alternative facts.  The truth can be used to deceive just as easily.  As Emily Dickenson wrote:

Tell the Truth but tell it slant –

Success in Circuit lies

This came to mind when I received the following graphic from a loyal reader forwarded from the local newspaper.

This is probably a true estimate of how many Americans (56%) believe their drinking water is unsafe.  It’s also true that they are mistaken in that belief.

According to the government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  “The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world.  The EPA requires every municipality to test for the presence and levels of over 90 different contaminants in public drinking water and to provide an annual report to all customers.

Wikipedia adds that in 2016, “over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance” with those EPA standards.

A Harvard site warns about polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), saying they “exceed federally recommended safety levels in public drinking-water supplies for 6 million people in the United States, according to a new study…”  But as a fraction of over 320 million people in the US, that’s less than 2%.

Instead of reassuring, the media emphasizes disasters and calamities about safe drinking water like this example from National Geographic.  But at the end of that article, after presenting the scary stuff,  they admit, "in spite of all the good reasons to be concerned about drinking water safety, resorting to bottles is not a sensible reflex."  Quoting their expert, an environmental scientist at Duke University, "People think bottled water is safer, but there is zero evidence that is true. The quality of water in city tap water is regulated far more closely than bottled water."

So municipalities spend billions of dollars annually so we can wash our clothes and dishes and take showers in water that’s safe to drink while the majority of Americans believe it’s toxic and spend billions more on bottled water.  This newspaper could have easily looked this up, but it’s not their job to educate.  It’s their job to sell newspapers, and scary “facts” sell better.

The next day I set a ketchup bottle on the table and saw (proudly displayed) on the label:  No High Fructose Corn Syrup, No GMO Ingredients.  Although these two statements are technically true, they are mainly intended to lure uninformed shoppers.

First, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for some reason has gotten a bad reputation among food purists; but fructose, glucose and sucrose are all sugars.  This FDA website explains the tiny chemical difference between HFCS and sugar.  They conclude:  “We are not aware of any evidence…that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners.”

These facts of no chemical or health differences are backed up by other sources.  And even those that give reasons to avoid HFCS say it is no worse for us than sugar.

So it’s true, but slightly deceptive – the ketchup contains no HFCS; it contains sugar instead!

Second, the main ingredient in ketchup is tomato concentrate from tomatoes.  As I’ve written before, there are no GMO tomatoes!  Likewise, the label on the Non-GMO orange juice doesn’t mention that there are also no GMO oranges.  Non-GMO statements in both these cases are totally true – but meaningless – except to those incurious people who don’t care about real truth.

That brings us to a recent CBS story about a Facebook executive concerned that “the social media platform may be hurting American democracy” and that they were “too slow to recognize Russian interference in the 2016 election” intended to further divide society as the Russians weaponized information to sow discord.

How can anyone “weaponize” information?  It starts with Americans jumping to conclusions on the basis of popular opinion, weak evidence, information that reinforces their own biases and truths that “tell it slant.”  The distress here should not be over the negative aspects of Facebook or any other media but over a severe weakness in critical thinking, a skill in great demand as we cope with the every-increasing speed and breadth of dissemination coupled with a serious decrease in quality of information.  The problem is not with the Russian posters or the platform; it's with readers who don't question and research.