And it was shoved into a list of similar questions of bans/limits for various health things. I'm a smart guy, but if I -- for example -- were asked whether I supported supported water chlorination, fluoridation, and silication, I'd assume that the third was related to the other two and it would take something wedging itself into my mental treadmill to give me a chance to stop and realize that made no sense.

This does seem to be essentially push polling from a group that opposes more detailed labeling. Including the question, “Did you read any books about food and agriculture in the past year?” is pretty much guaranteed to get a low positive response. Then it can be easily said, Look how ignorant people are; they shouldn't be participating in decisions!

I think (aside from the DNA one) they are valid questions to ask, but the answers to the questions cannot necessarily be divorced from the surveys. There are whole branches of various sciences and statistics devoted to "are you testing what you think you're testing" and "how much can we accept this result. I'm sure some of the responses were due to an ingrained fear of chemicals, but if you asked people only the DNA question with no others (or with neutral questions written to avoid bias, which again is something people work hard to figure out how to do) you would get a different answer.

I don't think the author included it specifically as a gotcha question, it's just unfortunate that that question in particular went viral.

Disclosure: I have been party to a Dihydrogen Monoxide petition with the intent of "we are so much smarter than these dumb protestors." It was around 15 years ago and I regret it now.

But the GMO question is RIGHT THERE. The only way you don't notice the difference and rethink your answer is if you don't know what DNA is and you shouldn't be allowed outside of a biology classroom.

I know all about this DNA! It's some kind of horrible acid that men all over the world throw on women's faces and other parts. Sometimes they film it and put it on the web. They are called "prons".

Goddamn this is depressing. This is why we can't have nice things

Didn't they also have a senator who tried to pass 3 bill against marriage equality?

As far as the labels for gmo food, I wish it was manditory just so people could see how wide spread and harmless it it.

and make it easier to choose a gmo majority diet in order to gain mutant powers.

Food having no DNA: water, soda, salt, refined sugar, many candies, filtered beer, distilled spirits, ...

Is there any company that bottles water that's jumped on any of the diet fads by slapping "gluten free!" or "no high fructose corn syrup!" on the label? That seems like it'd get quite a few people to buy it.

I guarantee that this wine is mayonnaise free!

I'm sure I've seen bottled water with the 'GF' label. And while gluten-free diets are a big silly fad, keep in mind that for the small but significant portion of the population with actual celiac disease even a trace of gluten can cause considerable distress.

Yeah. You see a lot of hilarious stuff that says gluten free on it. My gf and I have definitely seen gluten free water, gum and an assortment of fruits.

Gluten is actually added to a lot of foods for elasticity. I could see it in gum.

Sadly, it's an issue on both sides. The number of people who consider themselves scientifically literate because they graduated high school and watch the Big Bang Theory, but haven't picked up a non-fiction book since school is maddening to me.

Remember when NDT made that statement equating all GMOs to artificial selection? Suddenly all the IFLScience fans on my facebook feed are experts on GMOs, just not enough to realize that NDT's statement didn't address any of the actual concerns anti-GMO people have. So much so that he had to release a follow up on his facebook page distancing himself from the shitstorm.

In reality the Anti-GMOers' concerns come down to four things:

1. Lack of understanding of the techniques used.


2. Lack of trust of the techniques used.


3. Lack of trust of the companies using the techniques.


4. Lack of trust in the regulating agency saying this food is safe.

If you want to solve the Anti-GMO movement you need to address those four pillars. Anything else is pissing in the wind.

All that being said, I'm not anti-GMO, (though I agree with some of their concerns) but I do think the labels should be mandatory as it informs and in a way, once combined with education, empowers the consumer. As for the DNA labeling, I would probably say yes just because I think it would be amusing for people to realize how prevalent DNA is :)

I think labeling is useful, but we need to figure out what KIND of labeling or else it isn't useful at all. I grew up with a peanut allergy in the 80s and 90s, when awareness of them was taking off along with an oversensitivity to litigation. Suddenly all sorts of products were stamped with "may contain nuts" because it was easier to do that and avoid a lawsuit than it was to figure out if they actually contained nuts. From my perspective it was useless, it took the decision out of my hands. Instead of "how risky is it" my choice was "do I believe that sign." For example, all of Jelly Belly's jelly beans got slapped with nuts in their ingredients overnight because one of them was peanut butter flavor, and I could no longer have my favorite childhood treat because I didn't know how seriously to take it.

In the '00s they began to sort those things out, and have settled on phrases like "made in a factory that processes ..." or "is made on shared equipment qith..." to give the consumer more information, as well as having a lot of details available online. Those are labels I can actually use.

Oh, totally, but that goes hand in hand with education part too. I mean it doesn't do anyone a lot of good knowing that their drink contains phenylalanine if they don't know what that is :)

i think montesando really fucked up the early impressions of GMO by looking to recoup short term R&D costs and ignoring end customers. Many of the formative years in the media about GMOs were about Frankenfoods etc.

20 years later the industry as a whole still suffers for it.

Also- marketing doing things like labeling water "fat free" and adding sugar (hyperbole here, I think) really undercuts trust issues. And really self regulation doesn't work in a lot of these industries. The FDA seems like a rubber stamping organization. It's actually the "science" part of the MGOs that I trust the most. That, and if there is a fuckup of some sorts, there's going to be a huuuuuge backlash.

But I do think a huge part of the anti MGO thing is other counties using it to block competition- like what Japan did with birth control. They basically stalled until they could develop their own version then suddenly everything was OK.

It's really an extensive multi-faceted topic and I'm not nearly smart enough to have a decent debate on it... but the stance against these things without understanding it is one of the reasons I'm not too keen on green-party hippie new age stuff on the left. (which is different than europe's issues with it- which I believe are based in money, politics, and competition.)

It's the last two on my list that I really have a problem with. When I was younger I was much more into supplements for working out so I'm very aware of how little the FDA and FTC actually bother to police the industry.

Dr. Oz and Nutritional Supplements: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)


Then there's the simple fact that the "new" (say last twenty years) standard of doing business in the US seems to to be 'as long as the profit exceeds the cost of associated lawsuits' it's an acceptable business practice. Whether it's always been this way or if Fight Club's bit on car recalls just made people more aware of it, I don't know, but from prescription drugs to bank fees it seems to have become acceptable to treat the consumer as an expendable facet of US business practices.

"I do think the labels should be mandatory as it informs and in a way, once combined with education, empowers the consumer."

Education must come first, as labeling runs the risk of stifling an industry before it can get a foothold. Breeders are already doing things slower and shittier than they need to with many crops because they're scared that no one will touch any GMOs they produce. I also agree with Bruceski--we need to figure out what the pertinent information is to include in any labels. "Contains elements of salmon protein" in the ingredients list is probably a lot more helpful than "GMO SALMON Hbb4" as a big red sticker on the package.

Well, the ideal way to do it, would be for the industry to agree on a standard. Then you announce the label system and a roadmap of informational advertising concluding in a labeling rollout.. Saturate the memo-sphere or what ever you want to call it with informative ads and news reports, then rollout the labeling. Everyone is happy.... except for the corrupt corporations and the incompetent regulatory agencies.

Informative ads won't do it. You can't teach basic biology in 20 seconds, and if industry is in charge of rolling out the education, it looks just as bad as those Exxon commercials that are like "we're good people! Trust us!"

Then you're going to be waiting on a labeling system for a long time. We're still arguing climate change. It's not as if you can send people back to school, and as long as our public school system keeps getting dumbed down to teach tests there's not a whole lot of hope for the upcoming generations.

And that's why I can't support GMO labeling.

Then all you're gonna get is what you got. You do it my way and by announcing the labeling before, but implemented after the information campaign, you make the people that are For Labeling more receptive to the information because it's their idea. It's leveraging something they already agree with thus making them more likely to pay attention and accept it. Look at all the liberals defending ACA when it's basically the exact opposite of the single payer system they were hoping for 6 years ago. It'd be nice if we were all rational beings making educated decisions based on empirical evidence, but in reality, it's all in the presentation.

I just see this as a validation of the ignorance and/or deliberate rejection of science in general among much of the American public. Likely a different demographic, but the same conditions that feed the widespread ignorance of climate change. Sadly we're a nation of rubes, ripe for conning by any smooth-talking special interest.

Oh wow those anti-GMO folks sure are stupid. Fuck them, right? What a bunch of assholes. Who knew they could ALL be so blind and ignorant? Thanks for the post. This really makes me feel more confident about unquestionably consuming whatever huge corporations decide to put on our grocery shelves. Very informative 10/10.

I'm sensing the tiniest bit of sarcasm. It's not about pointing and laughing at anti-GMO rubes, it's an indictment of the general U.S. public that 80% of people polled here do not understand ONE OF THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS FOR LIFE ON OUR PLANET.

WAT!
"Oh no why does all my beef and tuna have DNA in it damn you faceless GMO organisation that I can blame instead of actually reserching how aspects of my existance actually function. Im not ignorant those scientists are ignorant for coming up with conclusions that dont fit the ones i made in ten seconds without any proof."