Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

HughPickens.com writes Jennifer Abel writes at the LA Times that according to a recent survey (PDF), over 80% of Americans says they support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA," roughly the same number that support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods "produced with genetic engineering." Ilya Somin, writing about the survey at the Washington Post, suggested that a mandatory label for foods containing DNA might sound like this: "WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children."

The report echoes a well-known joke/prank wherein people discuss the dangers of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide" also known as hydrogen oxide and hydrogen hydroxide. Search online for information about dihydrogen monoxide, and you'll find a long list of scary-sounding and absolutely true warnings about it: the nuclear power industry uses enormous quantities of it every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is used in the production of many highly toxic pesticides, and chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions. Dihydrogen monoxide is found in all tumors removed from cancer patients, and is guaranteed fatal to humans in large quantities and even small quantities can kill you, if it enters your respiratory system. In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense.

Comments

It's a little early

[MadCow42]

For April fools jokes, isn't it?

This is, merely heckling

[Anonymous Coward]

A clever article that says that since
people can be fooled by clever lies,
that's proof that the law passed to state
that GRAS foods are to be treated "as if tested"
is the same thing as scientific testing.

This isnt worthy of slashdot, its heckling
not debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/fda-food-additives_b_3384629.html

A lot of shyte in our food stores is shyte, sold to us
by the people who use lobbyists to make laws
that allow the by-passing of testing, for example.

People need advice more than information

[hcs_$reboot]

Most people don't have the knowledge to assess by themselves if a product fits their expectation. Not only for food, any product needs a thoughtful advice/label from an independent and competent / national team to guide customers. What difference does it make for a customer who reads for the first time "chicken raised outdoors" and "chicken from battery cages"? The answer is here, and it's a big long, but a summary on a sticker would help customers to chose more wisely - and that would dramatically improve competition between very-low quality products sold 0.9 X against a much better product sold X (while the manufacturing cost of a "good" product would be twice the cost of a "bad" product). People tend to chose the cheapest one, by lack of information.

Re:People need advice more than information

[Chris Mattern]

They're *getting* advice. That's the problem. They're getting *bad* advice, and they can't tell the difference.

How do they judge "much better product"? Is non-GMO "much better", in spite of the fact that extensive research hasn't turned up proof of *any* bad effects, and can provide effective nutritional advantages in many cases?

Just for fun

[Crashmarik]

I googled for "GMO Hazards"

https://www.google.com/search?...

and out of the top 10 sites not one had actual problems that were caused by GMO foods

Lot of might and could be, but no actually. No "Killer corn ate my baby "

So How bout labeling foods that are produced from selective breeding genetically engineered as well ?
 

Re:Just for fun

[visualight]

When Monsanto and their "buy seeds from me till the end of time or we'll end you" business model are both long gone we can talk about GMO. Till then I am 100% against GMO ( because GMO == Monsanto ).

Now that I've cleaned the coffee off the keyboard

[rmdingler]

This is humor in the same vein as, "Do you want a Hertz donut?"

Strictly speaking, the phrasing is designed to generate the wrong answer so the respondent can then be mocked.

Jesus, we're fucked.

[thermowax]

This showed up in The Washington Post a week ago... and I'm still aghast.

Slashdot has classified this as a "humour" story, but I find it simply frightening. There's always going to be a certain quantity of dullards on the left end of the curve, but... 80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology? This isn't "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, DNA is DNA and it's functionality is taught in high school- usually repeatedly.

However, the thing that really, really scares me and keeps me awake at night is that *these fuckers vote*.

Re:Jesus, we're fucked.

[swillden]

Slashdot has classified this as a "humour" story, but I find it simply frightening. There's always going to be a certain quantity of dullards on the left end of the curve, but... 80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology? This isn't "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, DNA is DNA and it's functionality is taught in high school- usually repeatedly.

I don't think it's that bad. I think this is "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trickery, only a slightly subtler form.

The dihydrogen monoxide trickery is using an unfamiliar name for a familiar substance. Unless you've taken some chemisty and know how to parse "dihydrogen monoxide" as "a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", you don't realize it's water and the selective quotes, presented in a context that implies that the speaker/writer is a reasonably-intelligent person who genuinely believes there is a risk, obviously causes listeners to assume that it's dangerous.

A really essential part of the joke/scam is the fact that the speaker/writer appears to be intelligent and sincere. It's a social engineering scam, relying on the fact that most people are intelligent and sincere (the slashdot elitist tendency to assume general stupidity notwithstanding) and that therefore absent some sort of contraindications people tend to believe other people, because that's what makes society work.

In this case, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the 80% who were confused actually know perfectly well what DNA is, and fully understand that most of our food contains it because most of our food is made from living organisms. And they understand that children get their DNA from their parents, including their mother.

But the way this is presented strongly implies that the topic of discussion is some other DNA, which is not supposed to be in the food and can have some sort of deleterious effect, and that warning labels might be useful. Further, the similarity of the ratio with those who support labeling of GMO foods indicates that the presentation may have caused the respondents to conflate the question with one about GMO. Some of them might even have assumed that the survey was in error and intended to ask about GMO foods and answered in the affirmative while shaking their heads about the cluelessness of the survey author. The apparent intelligence and sincerity of the speaker motivates people to believe there's a real issue, rather than this being a joke or a trick.

So I suspect that the 80/20 split here is less an artifact of education levels than it is an artifact of the distribution of different personality types. To what degree are you skeptical of scientific-sounding claims that are presented to you as factual? And how willing are you to lend your support to crusades pushed by apparently well-intentioned people, particularly when they appear to have little, if any, downside? The suggestion that the action to be taken is just labeling makes this a relatively low-impact campaign, even if successful, so the cost to society is low, and the cost to the survey respondent is nearly zero. In that sort of situation, many people will agree merely to be agreeable, regardless of their opinion on the issue.

Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition?

[ColdWetDog]

Come on. You're blaming people not being able to handle qualitative and quantitative explosions in information (if not knowledge) on the family (or lack thereof)? Yes, family is important. No, family is not (and historically has not been) the general arbiter or source of most information. You're confusing family with society, especially pre literate society.

How in bog's green earth is any sort of family unit supposed to deal with the current knowledge set? Hell, even a university level professor can barely keep track of what goes on in their own field.

I think you're conflating a series of basic homilies and perhaps moral constructs (as useful and as important as they are) with knowledge. They are different concepts.

not honest

[PopeRatzo]

This is kind of a dishonest way for the food/chemical industry to try to push an agenda. Most people don't listen to the questions they're asked. They start thinking of an answer before the question has even been completely asked. I'll be most were really answering the question, "Do you support mandatory labeling of food that's been grown using intellectual property developed by companies that are famous for creating the world's most deadly products?" And the answer to that question about labeling of GMOs is always over 90% when the public is asked.

I can understand that faced with such overwhelming public sentiment for labeling that the chemical/food industrial complex would try anything to turn things around, but this is pretty underhanded. The fact is that consumers overwhelmingly want one little bit of information, as innocuous ask the little kosher "K" commonly on food labels. A simple yes/no to the question, "Does somebody own the intellectual property on the corn in this cereal?" is apparently so dangerous that the answer must be forbidden to consumers at all costs.

It can never be "pro-science" for information to be withheld from consumers. Even if that information is inconvenient to certain powerful corporations.

Re:Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition?

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us, but a knowledge-transfer process between the generations.

Seems like it's both. If school's job is to prepare you to be a good citizen, then shouldn't it be finding ways to take up the slack? And perhaps to build a better parent? Since that's what kids grow up and become, in part.

Throughout the Nuclear Age the nuclear family has been in steady decline.

You can say that again. But maybe it's a good thing. I never got along with my family. Why shouldn't I form a synthetic family with people more like me? It's a proven fact that family won't necessarily stand by you, so no difference there.

Call your Mom.

My mom has been focused firmly on herself since before I was born, and talking to her makes me feel like crap every time. Why don't you call my mom, if you think she needs a phone call so much?

Re:Link to the study

[rtb61]

So yes, the majority of people support the mandatory labelling of 'ALL' food. What exactly is in it. So what is so new about that. So some smart arse sucks in people who don't know what they are talking about thinks they win. So why didn't that same shit for brains ask people simple questions in a foreign language and laugh at their ignorance. Seriously give a few people a little more brains than average and they think they are geniuses.

It is pretty damn obvious that people want to know what is being put in their foods and screw all those that want to lie and deceive so they can stick shit in it because it is cheap and then add artificial flavours to hide the taste of that shit.