Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Another fun excerpt: "Secondly, participants were asked “Did you read any books about food and agriculture in the past year?” Participants were asked to select “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know”. Just over 16% of participants stated that they had read a book related to food and agriculture in the past year. About 81% answered “No”, and 3% answered “I don’t know”. Those who answered “Yes” were asked: “What is the title of the most recent book you read about food and agriculture?” The vast majority of responses were of the form “I don’t remember” or “cannot recall”. Fast Food Nation, Food Inc., and Omnivore’s Dilemma were each mentioned about three times. The Farmer’s Almanac and Skinny Bitch were mentioned twice. One respondent mentioned the bible."
This appears to follow the general pattern that people will lie to interviewers to seem more smart, educated, or intellectual than they are. They don't mention in the study a correlation between those who said yes to reading a book and then couldn't "remember" it when pressed and those who wanted to ban food containing DNA, but I'd be willing put money on their being a correlation.
Remember when news organizations didn't so blatantly try to push agendas? Well, I'm not sure if there ever was such a time but it certainly isn't today.
This appears to follow the general pattern that people will lie to interviewers to seem more smart, educated, or intellectual than they are.
There is some phenomenon at work. School curriculum seems to contain the essentials of literacy and a general sense that a modern world exists to be explored and understood, but for a great many children now and their twenty-something parents, there seem to be great gaps of knowledge... it is as if a great pool of historical and practical trivia such as that which would be imparted by oral tradition as conversation and interaction with elders, has gone 'missing'.
Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us, but a knowledge-transfer process between the generations. I speak not of a direct and simple connection with one's parents and grandparents, but ongoing dialogue with anyone 20+ years older.
From pre-school through college children are becoming independent at younger ages and are managing to slice out their own separate social lives. We encourage this, shape it even. It is possible for them to maintain contact principally with others their own age right into adulthood. Their parents are typically distracted and engaged with work, and everyone has their own directed entertainment to immerse in at the end of the day. Are sundown get-togethers between generations a thing of the past?
Until the post-war '50s there was little in the way of a teen-age subculture. Even before graduation there were life choices to make. You would typically be home by sundown, a great deal more interaction with adults and steady pressure for at least one of the younger to adopt the traditions and vocations of parents was real. Who will manage the farm, who will be the first apprentice at the clock shop? Who will join the Marines, who will be the teacher?
Throughout the Nuclear Age the nuclear family has been in steady decline. Where we had once been paced by the animals and family tradition we were increasingly paced by tides of external stimuli. Diverse political ideology, lifestyle options and the fossil fuel-rich economy encouraged far migration. Today families span more geographical distance on average than at any time in history.
Modern technology helped this to happen. We are a push-button society and kids push buttons as well as anyone. This extends to push-button entertainment and distraction. Maybe we've spent the last three decades of pushing separate buttons instead of spending long hours talking to one another about the little things and the big things.
What if this simple, sad message of generational estrangement as voiced by Harry Chapin... could be applied to a whole country?
Perhaps it's not too late to open those channels again.
Call your Mom.
Ask her what DNA is.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
80%?! 80% of Americans are unfamiliar with one of, if not *the* most fundamental concepts of biology?
Recently I explained to a friend why you shouldn't freeze some fruit, because the water will break the cells and the fruit will become mushy.
Her reply: "What are cells?"
After a few moments of baffled silence, I tried to explain how cells are the base "Lego bricks" for all life.
Next she asked "So if you eat cells, it's good for you?"
There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
I know exactly what it means, but depending on the context I could see answering yes to a question like this by accident. Load up a questionnaire with a ton of stuff about untested chemicals, GMOs designed in a lab, etc, and then slip that one in near the end. Your brain doesn't read it as simply "DNA" but instead connects it with all the stuff it just heard.
Sort of like when someone asks you ten "yes" short questions as quickly as possible and then slips in one that should obviously be "no" but you're on autopilot at that point and answer "yes" anyway.
Being a farmer myself, I find that quote pretty funny. Guess he never bothered to actually visit a farm and fine out. I can't comment on the "safe to eat" part but I can certainly attest that yields are much higher, and pesticide application is much reduced with GMO varieties of corn, canola, and soybeans. However with the increase in yield comes increased disease pressure, so overall, with or without GMO, pesticide use is still on the rise and that concerns me, not so much for food safety, but for sustainability and environmental reasons. It's kind of like hospital antibiotic resistance issues.
The blogger also would be interested to know that the majority of food crops we eat (cereals) are not genetically engineered at all; they are bred as we've bred them for thousands of years. The real next stage for cereals is to develop cereals and bacteria cultures that can fix nitrogen. That is going to be a game changer.
As far as "organic" pesticides go, Chemical companies do work on naturally-derived pesticides all the time, but few of them make it to market because they fail toxicity tests (don't want them to kill birds, animals, etc). It's in their interest to develop good organic pesticides because there's huge public demand for it, and a lot of money to be made. But it's a very hard thing to do.
Non-GMO is less likely to have unforeseen consequences and require less research to figure out how to fit it into a properly balanced diet. The problem at the present isn't that GMO is inherently unsafe to eat, the problem with it is that it's unpredictable when random bits of DNA start combining in unpredictable ways because Monsanto can't be arsed to prevent it from happening.
Unfortunately, if something really bad does happen, which is definitely possible, it's likely going to be too late to undo the damage. Just look at the amount of damage that non-GMO organisms do when they get released into an area that hasn't adapted to them. The results aren't pretty and are very expensive to clean up, assuming that you can. Some things like horsetails are capable of pushing up through black top and are resistent to most herbicides.
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 ?
I think the labelling thing is nonsense since I don't think health risks are a big concern but I am a bit more cautious about the long term environmental effects as I suspect we're underestimating the probability of black swan events.
I think of selective breeding vs GMOs is a bit like traditional medicine vs modern medicine. Traditional medicine generally ranges from slightly beneficial to mildly harmful, you're not going to do yourself much harm, but you're not going to help much either. By contrast modern medicine is devastatingly effective in good ways and bad.
Right now you'd be a fool to choose traditional medicine over modern medicine, especially if you have a serious health issue, the benefits are too strong and we know how to manage the nasty side effects.
But at the dawn of modern medicine? You're probably better off dealing with the traditional stuff, a lot of people died because modern medicine was an incredibly powerful tool and people didn't know enough about that tool to use it safely.
I worry we're at that stage with GMOs and the environment. We don't really understand what it does to the ecosystem when we introduce new traits at that speed and effectiveness. We really can't know until we've done it a while. I'm sure GMO crops are the answer for the future, but I'm worried our capabilities are outstripping our knowledge.
I stole this Sig