MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Flashback - Food Label Funny Business – Part 2

[Last Friday’s flashback related to serving size, like the “single serve pizza” or the chicken pot pie that each contains two servings. Trust me, it’s easier to cut a small pizza in half than the soupy-centered pie.

This week I flash back to early last year in another example of how important it is to pay attention and to “Read the Label.”  It’s not about serving size this time but about a surprising comparison, finding out an energy drink is about as unhealthy as a gooey donut. Here are the details I shared in January 2019.]

Every gardening class on the use of pesticides repeats the mantra, “Read the Label.” Even a bottle of Lysol brand cleaner has the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This is true of many other household cleaners, even though most people do not think of them as pesticides (killing bacteria) or otherwise hazardous.

But this little bit of wisdom applies not only to household cleaning and garden chores, but also to what we eat. I found a rather surprising example recently.

Since about 60 years ago Americans began worrying about the amount and types of fat contained in their foods. Eating fat was believed to clog the arteries, and many assumed that the fat in food turned into fat in the body. Government guidelines picked up the message, and most of the funding from about 1970 on went to scientists trying to prove the dangers of fat. 

More recent research shows that we should be more concerned with sugar than with fat. Experts now blame the obesity epidemic on sugar, as cities try to tax or ban sugary soft drinks and experts try to discourage sugar consumption in general. (Sugar moderation is especially important to avoid developing adult-onset diabetes.)

Here is the example that surprised me. Below are pictured two products: a 32-ounce bottle of Gatorade and a container of Boston Cream Donuts from the bakery at my local grocery store. Which would the average person guess contains more sugar? 

 

The Gatorade, as does its rival PowerAde, contains 21 grams of sugar per serving with a little more than 2.5 servings per bottle. That’s 56 grams of sugar as pictured here.

The package of donuts contains 10 grams per serving with 4 servings total. That’s about 28% less sugar in the four donuts pictured compared to a single bottle of sports drink, and the donuts contain less than half the sugar per serving!

How many other surprises are lining the grocery store aisles? We never know unless we read the label.

Failure of many people to do so is how the foodies and other self-proclaimed health experts get away with their absolute rules – never eat prepackaged foods, never eat anything you can’t pronounce, avoid GMOs and gluten. These stances are easy to remember but extreme and often nonsensical. If we just take a minute or two to read the label, we can make good choices without going overboard.

Flashback – Food Label Funny Business

[Over the years I have warned about the importance of reading labels on food packages. Today I will flash back to one of these and next Friday to another. The first emphasizes the importance of paying attention to serving size before taking the package information at face value.

Here, from December 2015 is “Brownie Mix Tricks.”]

This is not about some fancy recipes to make or decorate brownies. It’s  how the information on the box can easily be misleading or deceptive.

On the front of this box of brownie mix the label says, “110 calories.” This looks very reasonable for a dessert.  It is less than two graham crackers, little more than a single chocolate chip cookie.  But let’s look at the fine print.

Trick number one: the serving size is 1/20 of a package. That seems like a very small brownie. When I made them, I cut the finished brownies in an 8x8 pan first in half, then cut each of those slices in half. Then I turned it and cut again in the same way. I had 16 small, square brownies about 2 inches on a side.  Now 1/16 is not 1/20; it’s actually 25 percent larger. So 110 calories becomes almost 140 calories.  But wait!

Trick number two: the front of the package refers us to the nutrition facts label on the side of the package. There it says again 110 calories (with 20 servings per package), but that is for the contents of the package only, the powdery stuff. When you stir in the water, oil and eggs a serving size has 160 calories, which becomes 200 calories for the size brownie I cut, and the calories from fat have increased from 9% to 38%.

So we have a package that honestly and legally reads 110 calories, but the brownie I put in my mouth has 200 calories, nearly double that amount. This seems a little bit tricky, at best. We are expecting one amount and getting nearly twice as much.

The government’s solution to this problem is to make the nutritional labels larger. The behavioral model’s solution to this problem is to promote critical thinking. The government’s solution is the same problem with a bigger font size, but we still have to figure it out for ourselves. At least the behavioral model gives us a chance to be better consumers, as this somewhat trivial case shows. And it also gives us a chance to be more successful in many of life’s more complex challenges (where the government can't solve it for us - we still have to figure it out for ourselves).

P.S.  The brownies were delicious!

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.

You Can’t Judge a Beer by Its Cover

The alternative title could be Beauty and the Beer. 

In either case, I am not awfully qualified to talk about beer. I drink it rarely, at the infrequent cookout or gathering, primarily when that’s what everyone else is having. I let someone else choose the brand because they all taste about the same to me. I would always prefer a moderately priced wine.

That being the case, on some of those occasions I’m puzzled to hear someone defending his choice of beer as the best tasting. Television ads have also for years touted the taste of their beers, especially stressing how they can remove the calories without negatively affecting the great taste, presumably allowing imbibers to get drunk without getting fat.

That’s why I was so surprise to see, first on the TV news and later on the CBS website, the headline: “ ‘They want more than just a great beer’: How craft breweries are embracing cover art.” That’s right, craft breweries – considered by some to be the best of the best, small batches, meticulously brewed, old-world recipes, etc. – are trying to differentiate themselves with artistic labels. Or as CBS puts it, “Craft beermakers go to extraordinary lengths to brew up the perfect pint – and lately, that attention to detail has shifted to what's on the outside as well.”

They go on to explain how one particular brand was rated Best Beer Label in a recent USA Today poll. “For years, the can has been one of the most sought after in the world.” 

Their competitors are following their lead, teaming up with artists and designers to create new and captivating labels. Some examples of their efforts are listed here in a piece called, “The 20 Best Beer Label Designs of 2018.” Although these are fun to look at, the first question that comes to mind is, who is judging which is the best? As subjective as the rest of the art world is these days, it’s likely one person’s opinion vs. another. Are they going to develop “schools” of beer can art?

While the beer brands are trying to win business with artsier labels, this is one of the companies trying to win business as a label designer by convincing them of the importance of such a decision. “With the sheer variety of beer labels on store shelves, making a buying decision can be challenging. As a result, many shoppers gravitate toward the brightest, boldest, most unusual designs.” 

Although judging a beer by it’s label may seem like a silly premise, Nielsen studies have shown that the design of the container or box can carry almost as much weight with the beer buying public as the style and brand name.

The whole situation reinforces the observation of how superficial Americans can be. No matter how adamant some are about their favorite brand, marketing departments of large and small brewers are willing to shell out more money for designers to come up with innovative labels to sway the public, increase market share and even turn their customers into beer can collectors. It’s the perfect marriage of two purely subjective judgements, taste and beauty. Will the beer drinkers of today be trading beer cans like their grandparents used to trade baseball cards? Will they march like lemmings to buy the prettiest beer can as determined by the annual beer can judging contest, just as teenagers are influenced by the number of likes on social media content?

Perhaps this means that I have been right all along and that one beer tastes about the same as another, forcing them to turn to a new gimmick to try to stand out.

Paying Attention to the Wrong Things

How many Americans spend their lives paying attention to the wrong things and to the wrong people? About once a month I’ve explained how celebrity endorsements of various products are mostly misleading, resulting in wasted time and money, sometimes putting people and their families in serious danger. Vaccine-hesitancy is just one small example of this in the present-day news.

This came to mind when the tomatoes I had raised from seeds in the back window and planted in the garden were devastated by the storms of May in the Midwest – no tornados, but enough wind to tear the delicate leaves of the stems. I was forced to buy hardier replacements at the local nursery. On one pot were the words, “FOODIE FRESH,” whatever that means. I began to wonder, where did all this foodie business come from, and why do people pay any attention?

First found in print in 1980, the dictionary definition of a foodie is a person who has an ardent or refined interest in food. 

Surely this is a new phenomenon, unlikely to be driven by some inherited predisposition from ancient times. I can’t imagine our hunter-gatherer ancestors being overly fussy about the food they ate, perhaps complaining that the wild boar from one jungle was more tasty and tender than one from another field. That would have led to quick extinction of the race – or at least of the foodie-oriented genes. No, they were more concerned with survival, a factor that is easily taken for granted today.

More recently, in the Great Depression, or even in most of the second half of the last century, food was not as plentiful as it is today. Foodies were non-existent and those who were considered gourmets usually came from the upper class, the idle rich.

But in this century things have changed. We have a Specialty Food Association, who sponsored the 2012 Culinary Visions Panel Survey, that gave us the following:

• Three-quarters (76 percent) of U.S. adults enjoy talking about new or interesting foods. 53 percent of U.S. adults regularly watch cooking shows. 
• 54 percent of casual diners are considered foodies because of their desire to always or usually try new menu items when going to a restaurant.

Percentages are likely higher today as being considered a foodie has become a status symbol.

Another, more recent source tells: “A study of 2,000 Americans examined the rise of the foodie phenomenon and found that 62% would go to an event just for the food.” And “Seventy-seven percent say food is important when attending any public event.” Perhaps foodie is more closely related to a gourmand, a word that carries in addition to refined or discriminating taste, the “connotations of one who enjoys food in great quantities.”

The simple promotional statement on the side of a plastic tomato pot plus a little research leads to the conclusion that in the middle of a so-called “Obesity Epidemic” advertisers and consumers themselves are glamorizing the idea of an obsession with food, especially more exotic choices. Being a foodie becomes a source of pride, an opportunity to boast of one's discriminating taste and giving the show-off implicit permission to indulge. And any effort to disparage the movement would be considered shaming.

A little more perspective might make people appreciate the true blessing of having regular access to ordinary food, that is, to pay more attention to the right things.

Super Foods

Critical thinking leads me to believe that all the talk about super foods is crazy. People read about some newly christened super food, adopt it in the hope of improving their lives, convince themselves that they feel so much better, and spread the word. This is particularly dangerous in the case of celebrities. 

Here is a sample I pulled from a Gannett article over four years ago.

Alas, for 2015 we find out that quinoa is out and kaniwa, “sourced primarily from the Andes Mountain region of South America,” is this year’s super-food, “high in protein, fiber, iron and calcium” and gluten-free!  In the search for a better sweetener, “coconut sugar is making its way onto the scene.” Actually, all things coconut are in fashion as part of the Paleo food trend.  Almonds are out and pistachios are in along with Nduja and spreadable salami.

Just last year I commented on a TV ad for beet powder as a circulation super food, with the power to support increased energy without stimulants, promote heart health and support healthy blood pressure levels. (Notice how these products sold as supplements always support and promote without really promising to do anything definite.)

Finally, here is one from this year that sounds extremely confident and enthusiastic. It begins: “Move over kale, quinoa, and coconut water! …There are some new superfoods on the block, packed with powerful nutritional benefits and exotic tastes.” To reduce the shock of finding yet another new super food, they remind us how the super-food trends of today would seem “rather bizarre” just a few years ago – now that’s comforting!

It continues: “These are the superfood trends you should not only watch out for, but get excited about.” Included in the list are nut oil, chaga mushrooms, cassava flour, watermelon seeds and tiger nuts; and try maqui berries, instead of the so-passé goji and acai. Wash it all down with some probiotic water. When making your heart-healthy smoothy, try substituting moringa for your matcha, maca or spirulina. (Who does this stuff?)

That’s why I was so pleased to find this article. Although when I saw the headline, “The Definitive Superfood Ranking,” I expected more of the same, the picture showed apples and broccoli, so there was hope that some sanity would prevail. 

The piece begins: “It seems like everything in the grocery store is labeled ‘super’…[but] which foods are actually proven, by science, to be good for you and which ones are all hype.” They go on to say that many dietitians think the term super foods should be eliminated because it is so misleading, sometimes intentionally so by food marketers. Such labeling raises the price and promises to do what no single food can do alone, make you healthy.

The article begins by exposing the gluten-free myth. “Unless you have celiac disease or suffer from a true gluten intolerance (example: you are doubled over and running for the bathroom post-pizza), there are no proven physical benefits from going gluten-free.” Then it explains how orange juice is not the best source of Vitamin C and adds that the benefits of coconut oil, chia seed, kimchi, sweet potatoes, almonds, acai and beets are more hype than reality.

At this point in the story, the emphasis changes to address truly healthy foods: eggs, cherry juice, broccoli, coffee, apples, green tea, black beans, dark chocolate, red wine, salmon, turmeric and blueberries. Each are backed by some valid scientific research and their prices are not inflated by fads and hype. (I also noticed that not a single one of them caused problems with my spell-check, unlike about half of the so-called super foods in the lists above.)

Wow! Are real foods eaten in moderation the answer? Despite that, the odds are good that in 2020 someone will discover another new super food in some remote jungle, and the masses will jump on board. (Excluding those who were mauled to death trying to harvest tiger nuts!)

Read The Label

Every gardening class on the use of pesticides repeats the mantra, “Read the Label.” Even a bottle of Lysol brand cleaner has the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This is true of many other household cleaners, even though most people do not think of them as pesticides (killing bacteria) or otherwise hazardous.

But this little bit of wisdom applies not only to household cleaning and garden chores, but also to what we eat. I found a rather surprising example recently.

Since about 60 years ago Americans began worrying about the amount and types of fat contained in their foods. Eating fat was believed to clog the arteries, and many assumed that the fat in food turned into fat in the body. Government guidelines picked up the message, and most of the funding from about 1970 on went to scientists trying to prove the dangers of fat. 

More recent research shows that we should be more concerned with sugar than we are with fat. Experts now blame the obesity epidemic on sugar, as cities try to tax or ban sugary soft drinks and experts try to discourage sugar consumption in general. (Sugar moderation is especially important to avoid developing adult-onset diabetes.)

Here is the example that surprised me. Below are pictured two products: a 32-ounce bottle of Gatorade and a container of Boston Cream Donuts from my local grocery store. Which would the average person guess contains more sugar? 

 

The Gatorade, as with its rival PowerAde, contains 21 grams of sugar per serving with 2.5+ servings in the bottle. That’s 56 grams of sugar as pictured here.

The package of donuts contains 10 grams per serving with 4 servings total. That’s about 28% less sugar in the four donuts pictured compared to a single bottle of sports drink, and the donuts contain less than half the amount of sugar per serving!

How many other surprises are lining the grocery store aisles? We never know unless we read the label.

Failure of many people to do so is how the foodies and other self-proclaimed health experts get away with their absolute rules – never eat prepackaged foods, never eat anything you can’t pronounce, avoid GMOs and gluten. These stances are easy to remember but extreme and often nonsensical. If we just take a minute or two to read the label, we can make good choices without going overboard.

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.