Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB) today [January 7, 2016] announced its support for the enactment of federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)….Campbell is prepared to label all of its U.S. products for the presence of ingredients that were derived from GMOs.
There’s an interesting post over at Philoskeptic, “Campbell’s Soup and the Ethics of Food Labeling.”
I recommend the whole post to you. I found we had areas of agreement and (apparent) disagreement in regards to the meaning of Campbell’s labeling, specifically about choice.
I agreed with:
“Labeling itself is fine, such as including the names of allergens (milk, soy, wheat, etc.), or ingredients which could potentially harm a sub set of the population (such as phenylalanine), but labeling genetically engineered food is simply a bad idea.”
Indeed, one reason (of the many reasons) is that GMO is a placeholder, not an actual thing. Nathaniel Johnson has pointed out on Grist, “It’s practically impossible to define ‘GMOs.‘” that “GMOs, like other cultural constructs — think of gender, or race — do have a basis in reality, of course: We can roughly define ‘male’ or ‘Asian,’ but when we try to regulate these divisions, all kinds of problems crop up. And definitions of ‘GMOs’ are much messier — ‘nerd’ might be a roughly equivalent category. You know what a nerd is, but things would break down fast if you were required to label and regulate all the nerds. The definition of a nerd depends on the context; it depends on who’s asking. Same with GMOs.”
But I take issue with: “Choice is overrated…” He links to a Ted Talk by Barry Schwarz who says, according to the Ted Talk site, “…choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.”
As Matt Ridley points out in his book, The Rational Optimist, “[According to political scientist Ronald Inglehart]: the big gains in happiness comes from living in a society that frees you to make choices about your lifestyle –– about where to live, who to marry, how to express your sexuality and so on. It is the increase in free choice since 1981 that has been responsible for the increase in happiness recorded since then in forty-five out of fifty-two countries. Ruut Veenhoven finds that ‘the more individualized the nation, the more citizens enjoy their life.'” [Emphasis mine]
I disagree that there are some things that we the people should not be free to choose. Philoskeptic says, the issues of “health and environmental safety, are probably far too serious to be left to the whims of consumer choice….The decision should not be made by consumers, but by an appropriate regulatory body which has the requisite knowledge base to make appropriate decisions regarding food. ”
This argument is akin to an “appeal to authority,” that is, “using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument.” In this case technocrats, a la Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), would make decisions for us. So why worry our pretty little heads about such things?
The EPA’s track record is spotty at best. It has always amazed me that the “Best Available Science” applied by the EPA (or other government agency) seems to be highly affected by the party affiliation of our chief executive, the President of the United States.
One thing social media has shown is that the majority of people are quite astute at calling bullshit on organizations and governments and holding them accountable. Companies especially know that the “long shadow of the future hangs over any transaction”(1) and we customers (having choices) will take our business elsewhere if we are not happy with the company’s policies or product.
Again let me stress that Philoskeptic and I do not think Campbell’s call for a federal label is a good one. GMO labeling is as unnecessary as it is costly. Go here to read the complete post.
Footnotes:
- Matt Ridley
Follow @Timberati
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
Nullius in Verba 
While I agree that not all GMO food is inherently bad, I personally would welcome knowing what is in the food I am buying. Currently there are many food items I will not buy if I cannot tell what their lineage is and where they were produced. In my case, at least, I would buy a wider range of food items if I know this information. Getting into the GMO debate on this post is most likely not viable or worthwhile. Suffice it to say that in my personal choices there are some genetic modifications I have no problem (e.g. increasing tastiness, manipulating size, increasing yield) with and others (e.g. introducing animal genes into plants, making a plant produce its own pesticide) that I find troublesome. How do we know which gene modification practice was utilized with a labeling scheme? We don’t. But that does not negate the wants of millions of Americans that they know whether their food is GMO or not. I don’t trust Monsanto implicitly. The gist of Timberati’s writing on this subject leads me to believe you do – that is your right but it should not be foisted on the rest of us that don’t agree.
Good to hear from you again Mike (or do you prefer Michael?). Happy New Year. How were your holidays.
Given that the Timberati, which is me, myself, and I, wrote it Michael, I’d say I agree with myself.
Thanks for commenting. I disagree with you, of course, but I appreciate your thoughts. On the subject of plants that make their own pesticide, I just learned the other day that the protein the plant produces is so specific that it only affects the juvenile corn borer and not the adult.
Cheers,
Norm
As for “animal” genes being using in plants (first, a gene is a gene it does one thing –it replicates itself), there are none, atm.
I did some research on the Bt protein that is produced by ” introducing animal genes into plants, making a plant produce its own pesticide.” I’d argue that bacteria aren’t animals they are “prokaryotic cells that do not have a membrane-bound nucleus,”pro-karyotic” is Greek for “before nucleus”. Besides bacteria, the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are a major group of prokaryotes.”
“During spore formation the bacterium produces a crystalline protein which is toxic to specific insects depending on the bacterial strain< ….This protein is converted to a toxic variant only in the intestine of certain chewing pests.
"Not all Bt strains are toxic to insects, but of the toxic strains, around 170 Bt toxins have now been identified. Their spectrum of activity is restricted to three insect orders: butterflies and moths, leaf beetles and two-winged flies and midges.
"In 1989 the toxins were divided into five main classes according to their spectrum of activity, uniformity of gene sequences and molecular size (cry =crystal):
• CryI: acts specifically against butterflies and moths
• CryII: butterflies, moths and two-winged flies
• CryIII: beetles
• CryIV: two-winged flies
• Cry V: beetles, butterflies and moths
"The fact that Bt proteins are so specific is a key advantage of Bt preparations.
"The individual Bt protein variants target the pests of a specific crop without harming other species considered to be beneficial. In addition, the Bt protein is harmless to mammals and humans."
My quick look around different resources basically came up with the same info that currently there are no cross-kingdom products available commercially though experiments with fish genes in tomatoes, for example, were trialed but not implemented. Those scenarios are possible and I would like to know, just like we know what are the ingredients in that bottle shampoo, what is in my food sources. To me, labeling of GMO just seems so common-sense and straight-forward I cannot imagine anyone outside of Monsanto not wanting to know. I don’t trust the government or Monsanto enough to not have this info for my own use.
http://www.biofortified.org/forums/topic/are-there-gmo-plants-with-animal-genes/
Biofortified is an excellent site to get information. I know many of the folks who write for it. They are solid folks who know their science.
For instance, Marc Brazeau notes that we share half our genes with bananas. http://www.biofortified.org/2014/04/realizations-about-gmos/
Genes are packets of code (recipes/information) that some time long ago aggregated to make us and bananas.
You don’t trust Monsanto. I don’t trust Mercola.
I don’t trust either but I also don’t have to buy anything Mercola is selling whereas with Monsanto I really don’t have a choice but to consume their products.
I think we agree for the most part. My issue with choice is not that choice itself is bad, but that like anything there is a tension between unlimited choice, and no choice at all. I think we would both agree unlimited choice is bad; I should not be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons, this choice should not be open to me. No choice is also bad, for all the reasons you suggested. However, there is a balance in the middle, that is complicated, and we disagree somewhere in this middle area. I think there are some things which we should have choices over, you think we should have choices over them. My first point, in reference to Barry, was not that choice is bad, but that too much choice is problematic, since it creates decision paralysis, as well as decreases affect. There is also an expertise gap. I don’t know anything about the logistics of road maintenance, and proper infrastructure design. I leave these decisions to government employees, who I trust to have the requisite knowledge base to make these decisions. Now, I know they don’t ALWAYS make good decisions, but I think they would, on average, make better decisions then i would if you allow me to vote on, or purchase, the appropriate rational option. I like Matt Ridley, but this is where I disagree with him, Homo-economicus (rational man) is a myth. Behavioural economists, such as Barry Schwartz, Daniel Kahneman, Dan Ariely, have done a ton of research on choice, and the rational failings of human beings. I think their empirical work is pretty straightforward, and conclusive on this matter. That is why I think the best thing to do is improve the EPA, and their ability to actually produce good regulation (which is complicated in itself), as opposed to mandating a confusing, and pointless label, which tells you nothing. I agree the EPA and FDA do not function perfectly, and maybe they don’t function the way you think they should function, but this is where the work needs to be done. If this means decreasing their power, maybe that is the right choice, I don’t think so, but at least we are now focusing on the right place to find a solution to the problem.
What?!? Does this mean I have to give back that thermonuclear warhead? How will my neighbor and I maintain a balance of power without my ability to wipe him off the face of the earth? ;-P
Now, seriously, thank you, I appreciate your thoughts and tone that is so often missing in the comments on these things. Civil dialogue? That is refreshing.
The EPA was created to try to remove the NGO influence (Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, et alia) from government policy by trying to insert the Best Available Science into the discussion. This would provide policy makers with up to date information and data. Sadly, the NGOs have EPA’s ear and we get policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy.
This not to knock their intentions or their intellects. I’ve worked for government most of my adult life (biting the hand that fed me). We believed in working for the people and protecting the environment. My work and my fellow foresters’ work (and the regulations to do so) have pretty much knocked out any timber harvesting on private land (Clinton stopped 90% of it on federal) to the detriment of the environment. We had the best of intentions.
As for infinite choice, no one has that, afaik. When I go to the store or Amazon, I’m given dozens of options to pick from whether it’s shampoo or shaving cream. I can study all the pluses and minuses, I can compare on price, I can say eenie meanie minee moe…. I don’t think anyone believes in Homo-economicus, we all have irrational streaks, this does not negate economics with its emphasis on incentives in being useful in discussion. Ridley points out in one place of Rational Optimist, “I think people respond to incentives and always have done. People weigh costs and benefits and do what profits them. Sure, they take into account non-economic factors, such as the need to remain on good terms with trading partners and to placate malevolent deities. Sure, they get better deals to families, friends and patrons than they do to strangers.”
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Norm
You’re right, we agree for the most part. (I neglected to mention that before)
Humorous that people (seemingly) demand the right to know…when many don’t even know the basics of agronomy and animal husbandry and the myriad of steps between farm and table. ME
We (I’m guilty too) do seem to forget that due to our division of labor we know only a small piece of any process (I, Pencil is an example of how no one knows all the work that goes into making a lowly pencil). For some odd reason, many seem to think that agriculture does not divide labor among perhaps millions of people.