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

Link to the study

[JoshuaZ]

The original study can be found at http://agecon.okstate.edu/facu... : Another fun bit in the study:

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.

Re: Link to the study

[BarbaraHudson]

Err.. No. It shows that 81% of people do not lie to interviewers, which is a much more positive angle and more true interpretation of said study. Stop being so pessimistic

Actually, it doesn't show that at all. Depending on the question, many more people will lie. For example, as jobs with health insurance were lost since the turn of the century, many smokers lied when looking for coverage, saying they had quit. In their mind, they could justify it by thinking "I'm trying to quit" or "I've stopped for the last few days, so I'm over the hump" but of course, they were lying to themselves.

I've seen smokers who have claimed to have been smoke-free for years, then go and light up in front of me 5 minutes later. "Well, I'm stressed so this is an exception." A bit of digging showed they were making "exceptions" 20x a day - but in their mind, those were exceptions and didn't count. Sort of like the calories in chocolate fudge cake don't count on your birthday.

Addtcts lie all the time - whether they're addicted to drugs, gambling, booze, or whatever ... and studies that rely on self-reporting without any means of verifying are pretty much hosed.

Re: Link to the study

[Dragon Bait]

[M]any smokers lied when looking for coverage, saying they had quit.

Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times. -- Mark Twain

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.

It's a little early

[MadCow42]

For April fools jokes, isn't it?

Re:It's a little early

[mpe]

Oh, I assumed it was DNA as in GMO... but it's just DNA... that makes a lot of food!

Possibly more interesting to know which foods are free of DNA. Which would indicate they either had nothing to do with any living organism, are highly processed or both!

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

[swillden]

Virii

I'm feeling pedantic this morning: The correct English plural of virus is viruses. In Latin the word is a mass noun, which means that the notion of a plural form didn't make any sense. In modern times we've applied a new definition which does allow for sensible pluralization, but historical Latin writings give us no clue about how to pluralize it. The most probable forms, though would be "vira" and "viri", not "virii". In English, though, the word is viruses.

Viruses are natural vectors for genes to cross species. Are you more comfortable with this happening at random in the wild or when it's watched and monitored in a lab?

It's ridiculous to assume that the mechanisms of selective breeding, where the changes originate in random mutations -- often accelerated by the use of mutagens -- plus random viral- and bacterial-vectored transgenic splicing, is somehow safer than deliberately-engineered splicing. It's like expecting that a bridge created by a fallen tree is more trustworthy than a manmade construct.

Re:Just for fun

[quantaman]

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.

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.

Damn Meant to include this

[Crashmarik]

From one of the sites

http://foodrevolution.org/blog...

I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

That's nice he ought to let the farmers know they can buy cheaper seeds and still do as well.

If it seems like I am laughing at these people and the Euros who seem to think it's in their interest to pay more for food, I am.

Re:Damn Meant to include this

[caseih]

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.

Related to another recent study

[serano]

There's also GAME-C (Group for Atomic Material Exposure Control), a group which has launched a campaign to force the pharmaceutical industry to label medicines comprised partially or entirely of atoms.

Breakdown of adult interaction, oral tradition?

[TheRealHocusLocus]

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.

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.

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.

[Longjmp]

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?"

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.

McDonald's...

[nicodoggie]

...can finally advertise as 100% DNA free!

American Clay Pidgeon

[hduff]

Since college, I have been encouraging people to help save the American Clay Pidgeon, colorfully-marked creatures "fragile as eggs" that a slaughtered every day and left to rot in fields at the hands of wildly enthusiastic gunners.

Danger 10,000 ohms!

[caseih]

The story about the water fountain sign reminds me of the sign at the Foucault pendulum at the uni where I studied. They had problems with people touching the pendulum, stopping it, etc. So they put up a sign that said, "Danger, do not touch! 10,000 ohms." Haven't had problems with people messing with it in many years!