Proponents of
genetically modified organisms (GMOS) for the next few years will likely
continue to frame the issues surrounding genetically engineered foods with a
bias favoring laissez-faire economics and continue to distort the argument that
opponents of GMOs make. Internet comments by proponents to posted articles
show evidence of prioritizing an aversion to conceding that the argument coming
from opponents centers on consumer choice over laissez-faire economics. They subordinate
a direct response to opponents’ concerns. By defending that labeling should be
voluntary, defending biotech firms’ pocket books, and defending against private
testing, they justify their reasons to distort and manipulate opponents’ side
of the argument.
- For instance, proponents
often bring up that kosher labeling is successful and introduced onto
packaging voluntarily and exhort this very fact.123
- Additionally, proponents
often raise the issue of the cost of labeling and provide insight into
where proponents’ concerns lie in calling to leave a company alone and let
them go about their business.4
These same arguments were made when nutrition labels, vegan labels,
vegetarian labels were being discussed publicly historically.
- Finally, proponents
defend practices by GMO producers that include private testing of their products.5
This appears to be a way to obstruct both independent testing before
something enters the market and the establishment of regulations that lead
to a verification process that often allay many consumers’ fears. However, this is all about legalities, really.
According to Scientific American, “To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an
agreement that limits what can be done with them. Agreements are
considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and
they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that
make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer
and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have
explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research.”6
Why is this important to
understand?
It’s a question of logic so you can judge the likelihood of there actually
being reform to the food policy in the foreseeable future. By protecting
laissez-faire economics and avoiding a direct response to opponents’ concerns,
it keeps the debate alive. However, here’s a helpful tip. If opponents think
about leverage, they will take advantage of knowing the type of argumentation
that is characterizing the debate. What proponents have done is create a scare
crow argument of the following kind. This scare crow forces opponents to constantly
have to remind proponents that they don’t oppose genetic engineering in
principle, they just want a label to know what is in their food, what they
can’t wash away, and often question all the herbicides and pesticide use, given
that their lifestyle CHOICE is to expose themselves to fewer chemicals in their
foods.7
The
entire debate can be analyzed as a straw man scenario. Proponents misrepresent and
exaggerate opponents’ argument to make it easier to attack. After opponents say that they have a right
to know whether GMOs are in foods because they don’t want to accidentally eat
them AND they don’t trust companies self-reporting on tests, proponents respond
by saying that opponents of GMOs are egregiously misinformed and anti-science,
because they think that GMOs are harmful.
The
attacks serve to undermine honest rational debate.
As
many thinkers about GMOs have pointed out, whether or not GMOs are harmful is
irrelevant. If a person does not wish to
eat pork, and there is no scientific evidence that pork is harmful, whether it
is harmful or not is completely irrelevant.
Let’s admit that perception
matters
Another
way to characterize the labeling debate can be seen in the following
illustration.
Let’s use your food
experience as an example. What food grossed you out when you were growing up?
It was probably some vegetable like broccoli, tomatoes or Brussels sprouts. For
me it was Brussels sprouts. Why did it gross you out? Because it wasn’t what
you had in mind and it wasn’t pizza, ice cream, a chocolate bar or something
that you were craving. Do you remember what they told you when you perceived
that gross food? They used the power of suggestive thinking, “It’s not as bad
as you think it is” and “try it, you’ll like it.” Do you remember hearing that
last part as a perceived threat, as in, if you don’t end up liking it, there’s
likely some restriction coming your way? You may have grown to like it
eventually, but what you resented was being coerced and forced to eat something
you didn’t like. There are much better ways in child psychology to tell a kid
about why certain foods that they perceive as gross may be seen in a better
light.
As an adult that same
feeling of gross food may have been aimed more at foods that weren’t
necessarily good for you, just the opposite, actually CONCERN you. Maybe for
some, science is what makes a concern go away. However, we all have our own
standards and comfort levels and that is often acknowledged in the variety of
products that one can find in almost any product category.
If you apply the same
domineering suggestive thinking to the GMO sitting on your table, instead of it
being a food that you just think is gross, you’re possibly going to feel
resentful, because you’re just being TOLD don’t worry about it, it’s fine, the
food is fine BUT NO ONE IS WILLING TO SHOW WHAT’S INSIDE. It’s a mystery food
that sort of makes you start wondering is it fruit or vegetable, or mineral, or
what! Why make someone wonder? Bring out the recipe. Where’d you get the
ingredients? Right?
Most
risk-averse people don’t want to be convinced or told that something they don’t
want to eat is harmless (because their first instinct is to ask what is inside
and they can’t get a straight answer). Psychologically, that is manipulative,
because they are being coerced to do something against their will. The person
telling them that the mysterious food is harmless and safe is missing the point
by acting like the questions that the eater wants answered are illegitimate and
to be disregarded. Certainly, the eater will resent having stuff they aren’t
sure about snuck into their food. This seems very understandable. It shows
disrespect for the free will of an eater. It’s demanding that people accept
that knowledge isn’t power, but
blindly leaping forward by taking someone’s word for it is. That’s distorted
thinking.
And
weren’t most of us taught early on that knowledge is power?
If
by choosing caution in the face of uncertainty about agricultural methods,
consumers are seen as still waiting for the smoking label that maybe doesn’t
warn but informs, it’s logical that they want to pursue standards, regulations
and labeling.
So What? Until opponents of
laissez-faire economics gain some ground in getting independent testing done
and their attitudes, perceptions and preferences aren’t put into the spin cycle
to come out as the only thing that is negotiable in the debate, the dominant
forces of economics will be the only thing solving any food policies. That’s
what opponents want. In other words, an opportunity to challenge laissez-fair
economics will continue to turn into a ‘rocking the boat’ framework rather than
informed consumer demand participating and being heard in addressing different
comfort levels about food products. Labeling of clothing, mattresses, and
carpets— really of so many things that touch our skin and go in our mouth—keeps
a customer informed. Concerns have often driven companies to change their
practices.
President
John F. Kennedy once said, “We cannot negotiate with
those who say, “What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.”
That
holds true in this debate. If opponents want to maintain a lifestyle choice
that includes sustainable practices that do not include pesticides, herbicides,
the right to know what is in a food, their individual preferences should not
give the green light for distorted attacks that suggest that they are
anti-science, misinformed and find GMOs harmful. If someone wanting the label
in your mind is the only one who needs to negotiate, think again, because you’re
making an impossible negotiation and preventing relevant debate. These attacks
are all irrelevant to a rational debate. Food choices are often subjective and
perception guides a lot of consumer choices in terms of preferences and
informed choice.
My Policy Prescriptiveness
Policymakers
should hear opponents’ side of the argument as a call to protect consumer’s
interest in requiring credible assurances that they won’t be guessing in the
grocery aisles. If genetically modified companies want to counter the
resistance to their food products, then they should be willing to ask their
critics the following question: What do you need to convince you that my
product is worth trying? If labels will help someone decide whether they want
to buy something or not, don’t undermine them. Laissez-faire economics isn’t
the only thing worth protecting.
- I agree with Ramez
Naam, the author of “The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite
Planet,” that the fight against labeling massively harms the perception of
genetically modified foods since it has the effect of boosting fear and
sounds like they know better than someone who just wants to know what they
are about to eat.8
- Penn State Law Program
on Regulation noted that consumer choice is central to the debate over GM
products given that if the presence of GMO products in foods does not
appear on a label, consumers wishing to avoid GMO food can’t.9
- GMO companies should
come prepared to negotiate.
Compliance even muddied
While
Initiative 522 in Washington is galvanizing support and criticism by opponents
and proponents of GMOs, it’s worth considering how much of the current
regulatory landscape is working smoothly when it comes to the EPA and USDA
oversight as it pertains to farmers. Even while the debate about labels is
turning out to be irrational, it appears that there are a lot of compliance
problems to current guidelines and regulations surrounding GE crops that need
public attention and scrutiny.
According
to a 2012 report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI),
“Straight Talk on Genetically Engineered Foods,”
- “Currently, the EPA
uses ad hoc standards. The EPA
could also improve its oversight of those engineered crops after they are
commercialized. In particular, the
EPA needs to ensure that farmers comply with refuge requirements. When the
EPA registered corn and cotton varieties with engineered Bt pesticides,
the agency imposed obligations on farmers who planted those crops to
reduce the chance that resistant pests would develop and limit the
technology’s effectiveness for future generations of farmers. Each farmer
is required to plant a portion of their farm with non-Bt varieties, which
acts as a refuge for pests that are not resistant to the Bt pesticide for
GE crops, because its existing testing guidelines, developed for chemical
and microbial pesticides, are usually not applicable. A 2003 report by CSPI found that about
20% of Midwest farmers did not comply with
government planting restrictions for Bt crops (The CSPI report,
“Planting Trouble: Are Farmers Squandering Bt Corn Technology?”10)
Then in 2009, CSPI issued another report entitled
“Complacency on the Farm”11 that
found, using industry survey data, that farmer noncompliance with the EPA
planting restrictions had increased to approximately 30%.”
“The most recent industry survey data submitted to
the EPA for the 2011 growing season showed similarly high levels of
noncompliance. This noncompliance with government refuge requirements could
lead to insects developing resistance to the Bt crops. If that happens, both
the Bt crops and Bt microbial insecticides used widely by organic and other
farmers would lose some of their effectiveness.”
- Finally, as far as the
USDA, CSPI notes their regulation of engineered plants to safeguard
farming and the environment is not as good as the EPA’s regulation. “The
USDA’s environmental assessments of engineered crops are not necessarily
thorough and the USDA conducts them only on crops they deregulate and a
handful of field trials. In fact, in 2009 and 2007, federal courts ruled
that the USDA’s environmental assessment of both engineered sugar beets
and alfalfa did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The courts required the USDA to conduct a more thorough
environmental impact study. The USDA also needs to improve enforcement of
its field trial permits.
The USDA claims to conduct inspections, but does
not provide the public with any information to judge whether inspectors are
doing a sufficient job. The few instances when violations have been made public
and the USDA has taken enforcement action, the company self-reported the
violation and the offending companies generally received a mild slap on the
wrist. The USDA also does not regulate all engineered crops, only those it
considers to be a possible “plant pest.” A “plant pest” is any organism that
can harm a plant or plant product.”
Come Prepared to Negotiate?
In
the absence of a consensus on risks and perceptions, I think that building an
all-inclusive healthy food public policy with effective compliance mechanisms
guided by standard tolerance levels for genetically modified foods is likely to
continue to become the secondary issue in favor of how GMO advocates want to
frame the debate. Unfortunately, as it stands now, since proponents don’t want
to deal directly with the fact that the battle is one about information,
ignorance and concern, many opponents will continue to negotiate in their own
gardens and continue to fight for labeling for foods because if a person does
not wish to eat GMO, and there is no scientific evidence that GMO is harmful,
whether it is harmful or not is completely irrelevant.
It’s
about choice for opponents and protecting laissez-faire economics for
proponents.
Now
what is this on the table?
