EyeQ Tech review EyeQ Tech EyeQ Tech tuyển dụng review công ty eyeq tech eyeq tech giờ ra sao EyeQ Tech review EyeQ Tech EyeQ Tech tuyển dụng crab meat crab meat crab meat importing crabs live crabs export mud crabs vietnamese crab exporter vietnamese crabs vietnamese seafood vietnamese seafood export vietnams crab vietnams crab vietnams export vietnams export
Food & Drink

Uncle Sam’s new junk food science

Fear-mongering and pseudo-science can be a toxic combination — all the more so when the government engages in it. And that’s exactly what’s happening to food across the country.

Last week, the USDA approved voluntary labeling of foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients, or GMOs. If a company wants to label food GMO-free, the food would carry a “USDA Process Verified” label with a claim that they are free of GMOs. Many states are pushing for mandatory labeling, with Vermont being the first to pass such a law.

Keeping consumers informed so they can make better choices is at the heart of this issue. The purpose of a label is to inform the consumer. Consumer awareness is a positive and a necessary oversight over the food industry.

But GMO-free labeling will have the exact opposite effect. It will misinform consumers. It will unnecessarily scare the public into believing GMOs are harmful when science proves GMOs to be safe. And it will also mislead them about whether the food is truly “GMO-free” anyway.

After analyzing 25 years of GMO research, the European Commission concluded that there is “no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

Despite the scientific consensus, a recent Pew research poll found that “more than any other issue, the public and scientists” had the most contradictory views about the safety of eating genetically modified foods. An astonishing 57 percent of the public said GMOs are unsafe to eat; by contrast, 88 percent of US scientists said GMOs are perfectly safe.

According to Consumer Reports, in 2013, sales of non-GMO-labeled products skyrocketed by 80 percent. The food industry is taking notice and feeding into these unreasonable fears. In April, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced it would be eliminating genetically modified foods and ingredients from its menu. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream also supports mandatory labeling.

Chipotle soon backtracked, explaining that “most animal feed in the US is genetically modified, which means that the meat and dairy served at Chipotle are likely to come from animals given at least some GMO feed.”

No kidding. According to the USDA, about 90 percent of all corn acreage in the United States is used to grow one particular form of genetically modified corn, known as herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops. The same is true for US cotton, and the number is even higher for soybeans grown in the United States.

GMOs are nothing new. For thousands of years humans have been modifying plant and animal genomes through selective breeding. GMOs, in fact, can even be healthier and more beneficial.

Public fear of genetically modified food is based on misinformation as well as, according to the Center For Inquiry, “the highly popular but invalid naturalistic fallacy: the notion that things that are ‘natural’ (a concept that is often poorly defined) are automatically more wholesome and safe than anything synthetic or artificial. GMOs are often thought of as mutants, unnatural, even abnormal.”

In reality, natural does not mean healthier. The Mayo Clinic reports that a study of 50 years’ worth of scientific articles concluded that “organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are not significantly different in their nutrient content.”

Consumers have a right to know what they are eating. But if a label will lead to unsubstantiated fear and hysteria, what good does it serve? The ease of scaring people with labels was acutely demonstrated in a Penn & Teller episode of “Bulls–t!” where people eagerly signed a petition to ban water when water was described by its scientific name, dihydrogen monoxide. It highlighted the absurdity of unscientific support for banning something that merely sounds scary.

Should we ban water, just to be on the safe side? The pretense of scientific knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Perhaps we need to rethink the GMO-free label altogether so as not to give any legitimacy to the false pseudoscientific claims that GMOs are harmful. Or perhaps we need to call GMOs something that will be interpreted more accurately. But the last thing we should do is frighten people away from the food they need — and can consume safely.