In Oregon, where our schools are inadequately funded and some counties don’t have the tax base to hire a sheriff, we are finally being showered with cash. Record amounts of the stuff are pouring in to defeat a little ballot initiative that doesn’t even have guns or fetuses in it anywhere.
The initiative, to require labeling of genetically modified foods, is similar to ones already defeated in neighboring California and Washington. All three started with polls indicating some 80% of the voters approve of labeling, but support dwindled under a crush of TV ads financed by the likes of Coca-Cola. The ads are following a well-worn, successful script. And it’s aimed right at liberals.
If it was aimed at conservatives, many of whom might not care one way or the other about GMOs, there’d be a lot about “government overreach.” There might be a suggestion that GMO labeling is a threat, somehow, to job creation, or personal liberty. And that it would be horribly expensive.
 |
| Home Grown Arugula |
This campaign does indeed say that it would be horribly expensive, but adds that “it would hurt those who can afford it the least.” That part is for the liberals, who are happy to buy heirloom arugula at Whole Foods but can be expected to care about the poor. In fact, one ad soberly maintains that adding GMO labeling to all the other labeling that is already required would raise grocery bills by “up to $500 a year” for a family of four. Gracious! Evidently we will need to examine each head of cauliflower before sharpening up the ostrich plume and inking the results. (Independent analysts put it closer to $2-3 per year, which is, after all, included in the “up to $500” claim; and when you’ve got the coin to drop millions of dollars on a campaign, the difference between two dollars and five hundred dollars is kind of a rounding error.)
Point number two, for the liberals: this measure is “poorly worded.” Liberals will respond to that. Some of us devote hours every week to correcting other people’s apostrophe use. Let’s see, says the liberal: I like this measure, but could it be worded differently? Might there be unforeseen consequences from the way it’s worded now? Things that only a very thoughtful person might anticipate? I’m a thoughtful person…maybe it’s the right idea, but the wrong measure. The liberal’s pencil hovers over the “no” column.
Hmm. The ads seem sincere and reasonable. They don’t shout TOO EXTREME FOR OREGON, which would be a red flag. A soupcon of doubt has been introduced. Liberals even know what soupcon means in French.
Point number three: the straw man, dressed up in professorial tweed. “This will introduce needless anxiety about GMOs that is not based on science.” Liberals love science! If it is true that studies show GMOs don’t endanger health (ignoring, for the moment, the catastrophic rise in diabetes, asthma, allergies, heart disease, and the like that neatly coincides with the advent of GMO food, and trusting that Monsanto’s scientists have it right), then it is unreasonable to ask those big corporations to label their food.
But. There are legions of us liberals who have no problem polluting our own bodies on a daily basis with pizza and beer, but still care about things beyond our own skin. Maybe we are concerned that organic farmers cannot protect their crops from windblown GMO seed. Maybe we are concerned that the ubiquitous Round-Up Ready GMO crops have resulted in soaring pesticide use that pollutes the watersheds and destroys the soil and harms the biosphere, including our pollinators. Maybe we feel helpless to dismantle an agro-industrial complex that is capable of producing a shitload of Cheetos–which we will totally eat–but is not in any way sustainable. And maybe we realize we can only get movement on the big issues, like GMOs and climate change, issues that have proved intractable on a national level, by using a local lever.
Technology is seductive. It’s tempting to put faith in the Army Corps Of Engineers to have dominion over water, even when (billions of dollars later) it’s clear that their math skills and concrete don’t work nearly as well as the natural wetland environment that they have replaced. It’s tempting to think someone clever enough to twiddle a genome can be trusted to manage any repercussions that might come up.
But some of us liberals are actually conservative. Some of us would prefer to run a thorough credit check on Pandora before letting her open her box. Pandora’s a slut.
I used to — as recently as last year, in fact — pore over the supermarket circulars each week, planning my meals based on what was on sale. No more. Over the spring and summer, I've been obsessively reading books and watching documentaries on Big Food, and how they have addicted the American people to sugar, fat, and salt so that we buy all that processed food… which is, in fact, what is causing not only the "obesity epidemic", but all the health problems that seem to be plaguing the populace of late. I recommend Gary Taub's books for going into the research behind it in detail; Nina Planck's book Real Food, if you want an overview without going into the minutia.
Now I throw the circulars into the recycling bin and shop at farmer's markets and organic produce markets. It costs more, yes. But buying cheap, processed food is what I call a false economy; you can spend the money on food now and stay healthier… or you can spend it later on medical bills, while watching your quality of life diminish. In addition, we also vote with our food dollar as well as at the polls. If we spend more of it on non-GMO and organic, the stores will provide it. My local Giant now has a huge organic section to compete with Whole Foods. Good move, but I still don't buy processed stuff, even if it is organic. The only real way to be sure that what you eat isn't overly processed is to go back to scratch cooking, which I do. It's more time consuming than popping something in a microwave, but it helps fill the time that I am NOT seeing doctors.
All I've done is cut out wheat, on the theory that it's been Frankenwheat for forty years (not my mother's wheat), but that's pretty much led to my not eating a lot of processed food. I think you're on to something.
I'm glad you've looked into Measure 92. I had the impression some very big money was being deployed to defeat it, just based on the sheer amount of propaganda against it I've been getting in the mail.
In any case my own ballot's already been sent off — including yes on 92, propaganda notwithstanding.
That's my man.
I used to think they were talking about gene manipulation by selective breeding and what's wrong with that? Then I read the bill. It's about gene manipulation that's done in a lab, I'm against it, and I voted already. And John Kitzhaber is the lesser of two weevils. Oh, and support marijuana legalization, too. That's my exit poll.
I'm right there with you on all counts, although I still like Kitzhaber.
Especially when he's walking out of a room. Mmm.
GMOs are a wondrous thing, helping to feed the world! If you have never seen it, Penn and Teller have a marvelous show called, "Bullshit!" There is a whole episode about GMOs. I recommend it highly. It's on YouTube, but probably Netflix has it too.
I would also like to add this: A frightened public is a docile public.
That sounds like fun. Penn and Teller are pretty dang smart.
You had me at, "…ubiquitous Round-Up Ready GMO crops."
Well, that is the main objection–that and things like it.
GMO's aren't inherently bad for us BUT the crops that are bred to contain poisons to kill moths and butterflies, crops that are bred to tolerate much higher concentrations of Roundup and other such abominations are definitely bad for us and the planet. We need to have them gone, or at least be able to tell what poisons we are eating.
I agree with you. This, of course, is not the main focus of the ads. But it's the crux of the issue for me, and thank you, I would like to be able to see it on the label.
I think there's an important point here. Yes, there's no solid evidence that GMOs as such are inherently bad for people. But if some people prefer to avoid them for whatever reason, shouldn't they have that choice?
I don't think Orthodox Jews claim that non-kosher food is actually harmful, but if they prefer to avoid it, they're entitled to do so.
No solid evidence YET. And as I said, even if there were, I'd have other objections.
What Leslie said. I'm hoping Minnesota will get GMO labeling on the ballot soon. But as you point out, Big Money will run masterful ads to (try to) defeat it.
They are brilliant ads. They will no doubt prevail. But we'll see.
I was just thinking about GMOs! I was thinking that they are probably the one issue about which my (largely liberal, largely scientific) group of Facebook virtual friends disagrees (and posts). Which is sort of interesting. Almost everything else we seem to have a consensus on. If one side is anti-GMO and pro-labeling, I'm on the other side. It feels funny to say I'm pro-GMO, because that's not it *exactly* but…I'd be voting against labeling. Me and Unimitigated Me and Penn and Teller, I guess.
I totally get that. And I hate fear-mongering, and almost invariably come down on the side of science. However, I'm not certain at all that we know the full impact of GMOs on our health; as I mentioned, I've become persuaded that modern wheat, which we were not designed to process, is much worse for us than we've realized. However, my objections to GMOs are much broader than any impact they have on our personal health. I think that's a bit of a red herring.
Clearly I need to read up on this some more. Not that I can vote on it, not being an Oregonian, but just to be educated on it. Pootie is just eye candy in that photo, isn't he, because look at how clean those overalls are. Tsk. Well, he's still really cute.
And he's organic! Well, actually, he's probably a little petroleum-based. But.
Sorry, but you have to direct me to studies that indicate the diseases you mentioned above have anything to do with GMOs more than processed foods…that happened to be processed with GMO's. As a liberal married to a scientist I am a bit on the fence on this.
I'm a liberal WITH a science degree and I absolutely get why you'd say that. Let me reiterate that the connections I alluded to are entirely coincidental–in the same way that climate change and fossil-fuel extraction are entirely coincidental. So I have my suspicions, but I want to emphasize that my main problem with GMOs is that they are responsible for expanding a kind of agriculture dependent on pesticides that we really must turn away from. Goodbye monarchs, goodbye bees, hello dead zones in the deltas and unsustainable monocultures that must be maintained with ever more petrochemicals. Et cetera.
Since I first read "Silent Spring" this has been my main objection to the over-use of pesticides.
And if someone can lace the ballot cocktail with humour…well, go get 'em, Murr.Nail Pootie to the lid of that slut's box!
But can't the production of GMO's help reduce the use of pesticides? I realize the dangers of those products that impacted monarchs and the milkweed that grew near crops…but why does this science have to be viewed as all bad. With climate change certainly plants that can tolerate warmer weather might be a good direction for GMOs.
It's doubtful. The most prominent use of GMOs now is to produce crops that don't die when you spray them with Round-up. That way they can spray everything else in the vicinity and grow huge monocultures of crops, going for that economy of scale. But producing those monocultures increases the need to use even more pesticides, as soil is weakened and bugs become resistant. And, incidentally,it also results in less yield. I don't necessarily view this science as "all bad." But the climate change thing is way, way more complicated. It wouldn't be a matter of producing plants that tolerate warmer temperatures (or moving cropland north or something, whether the topsoil is there or not); global warming doesn't just make the world a few degrees warmer everywhere. It produces fiercer storms, colder spots, hotter spots, and more flooding and drought. We're seeing the drought. Ain't no getting around that–but what are we doing with the water we do have? Bottling it and fracking with it. We're insane.
A world without bees and butterflies is a horrifying thought. In such a world there would eventually (and sooner) be no more naturally grown food plants at all, everything will be factory manufactured. the nutrition might be there (might) but where is the taste? the texture? the delight in savouring each mouthful? We might as well eat a handful of mono-coloured pills labelled breakfast, lunch, dinner. The joy of eating (and growing) food will be gone. That's a very sad future we may be looking at.
Actually, in such a world there wouldn't be much of anything. We don't have a substitute for pollinators that I know of.
Those Big Advertisers persuaded enough of my fellow Washingtonians that we didn't need no labels. Best solution for me is not to listen to no ads like that.
Yup. And I think the same thing will happen here. I just thought I'd do my little piece. Plenty of fellow liberals part ways with me on this one.
It is amazing, if one would open the eyes, how frequently one finds the "2 – 3 is, after all, included in the 'up to 500'" thingie. Good eye.
I ain't buying it. I guess they already have to label the GMO food for overseas markets, where they have found food prices didn't go up.
I voted for the labeling, even though I thoroughly intend to go on buying and eating GMO foods. What's the harm in letting people know what they're eating and having them make their own choices about it? Monsanto can go boil its head.
That is a VERY vivid suggestion, and if you don't mind, I intend to use that when appropriate in everyday conversation.
We are humans, GMOs, that's the kind of stuff we do. No more butterflies and bees? We're humans and we'll worry about those losses after the critters are gone. For now, profit margins are the main deal. Besides, average people are incapable of organizing resistance – they can't afford lobbyists and attorneys. Face it, we live in an American World shaped by Ronnie Reagan, tortured by hate radio and nurtured by indifference and apathy.
Yup. My only hope is that localities can start something. I mean, why would Monsanto be so interested in an Oregon election if they didn't fear the results would have a broader impact? That slippery slope starts somewhere. Oregon, Washington, and California governors banding together for things like fuel standards rattles the whole auto industry. It's too hard to get anything done nationally.