A recent survey conducted by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 80.44% of respondents supported a government policy mandating labels on foods containing DNA.
Not GMOs. DNA, the genetic material contained in every living thing known to science and practically every food, GMO or otherwise.
The results smack of satire, but they're real. The Food Demand Survey (FooDs) is an online poll of a representative sample of the U.S. population, conducted every month by Oklahoma State agricultural economist Jayson Lusk and research specialist Susan Murray. The most recent month's survey included a question regarding the institution of government policies concerning food. The results indicate that "a large majority (82%) support mandatory labels on GMOs." What's curious, note Lusk and Murray, is that roughly "the same amount (80%) also support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA."
The results indicate that most Americans do not understand the difference between DNA and a genetically modified food. The former is genetic material essential to life as we know it. The latter is an edible organism, the genetic material of which has been altered for some purpose. One is a building block, the other is the result of a process that alters those building blocks to some end. Given that a label warning of a food's DNA content would be, for all intents and purposes, as meaningless as a label warning of, say, its water content, the survey results reflect an unsettling degree of scientific ignorance in the American population.
The survey results are also symptomatic of chemophobia, an irrational fear of chemicals deftly parodied by a recent episode of Parks and Rec:
[YT]QUcJSfS9YWw[/YT]
Chemophobia is also brilliantly lampooned by the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division, a satirical scare-campaign that
rebrands water as the dangerous substance "dihydrogen monoxide." Borrowing on this conceit,
Ilya Somin of the Washington Post imagines what a DNA food label might look like:
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 results of Lusk and Murray's survey also highlight a contradiction central to GMO labeling campaigns that would see all genetically modified foods blanket-labeled as "GMOs," regardless of the modification they contain, or the ends toward which they were produced.
Prima facie, such initiatives seem like a laudable effort to provide consumers with information. What's ironic, UC Berkeley biologist Mike Eisen explains in a recent blog post, is how little information consumers would actually receive from such a mandate:
If you're worried that the GMOs you're eating might kill you, then you should want to know what specific modification your food contains. I don't think there is any harm in eating food containing the insecticidal "Bt" protein, but even if it were dangerous this would have no bearing on the safety of golden rice.
Similarly, if you are concerned that the transgenic production of plants resistant to certain herbicides encourages the excessive use of herbicides and triggers an herbicide treadmill, then you can boycott crops containing these modifications. But it doesn't make sense to oppose the use of crops engineered to resist diseases, or to produce essential vitamins. Indeed, there are many, like UC Davis's Pam Ronald, who believe that advanced development of GMOs is the best way to advance organic and sustainable agriculture. You may disagree with her, but it should be clear that the effect on agricultural practices varies depending on the specific plant and type of modification being considered.
The Oklahoma State food survey reinforces Eisen's point: A blanket DNA label would be even less informative than a blanket GMO label. And yet, an overwhelming majority of Americans support it, because
we have a right to know.
We have a right to know
what, exactly?
Over at WaPo, Somin ruminates on what can be made of the Oklahoma State food survey:
It would be a mistake to assume that widespread political and scientific ignorance are the result of "the stupidity of the American voter," as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber put it. Political ignorance is not primarily the result of stupidity. For most people, it is a rational reaction to the enormous size and complexity of government and the reality that the chance that their vote will have an impact on electoral outcomes is extremely low. The same is true of much scientific ignorance. For many people, there is little benefit to understanding much about genetics or DNA. Most Americans can even go about their daily business perfectly well without knowing that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even the smartest people are inevitably ignorant of the vast majority of information out there. We all have to focus our time and energy on learning that information which is most likely to be instrumentally useful, or at least provide entertainment value. For large numbers of people, much basic political and scientific information doesn't make the cut.
Eisen writes in his blog post that, in supporters of blanket GMO labels, he sees "a lazy and self-satisfied acceptance of an internally incoherent piece of legislation that, rather than giving consumers the 'right to know', will actually protect their desire to know nothing."
I'm not as cynical as Eisen. I like to think of myself as an idealist. But the Oklahoma State survey has dealt a heavy blow that idealism.
When participants of the survey were asked if they had read any books about food and agriculture in the past year." Roughly 81% answered "No," and 3% answered "I don't know." The 16% who answered "Yes" were asked to give the title of the food and agriculture book they had most recently read:
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 B**** were mentioned twice. One respondent mentioned the bible.
These results seem pregnant with significance, but I'm too dispirited to unpack them, at the moment.
t:
