Arecent surveyconducted by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics found that 80.44 % of respondent supported a government insurance mandate labels on foods check DNA . Not GMOs . DNA , the genetic material contained in every living thing live to science and practically every solid food , GMO or otherwise .
Update : In visible light of responses to the Oklahoma State survey by Ben Lillie and others , I have update the end of this post with some thoughts on the survey ’s designing and what can be made of its results .
The results bang of satire , but they ’re real . The Food Demand Survey ( FooDs)is an online canvass of a representative sample distribution of the U.S. population , conducted every calendar month by Oklahoma State agricultural economist Jayson Lusk and research specialist Susan Murray . The most recent calendar month ’s survey included a question regarding the institution of government policy concerning intellectual nourishment . The results , which you may say in full here , indicate that “ a large majority ( 82 % ) support mandatory label on GMOs . ” What ’s curious , government note Lusk and Murray , is that roughly “ the same amount ( 80 % ) also patronise compulsory labels on foods containing DNA . ”
The results indicate that most Americans do not interpret the difference between DNA and a genetically change nutrient [ Ed . Note : I have more to say on this – please see the end of this post ] . The former is genetic material essential to aliveness as we know it . The latter is an comestible being , the genetic material of which has been alter for some purpose . One is a building block , the other is the result of a process that alter those building blocks to some goal . give that a label warning of a food ’s deoxyribonucleic acid content would be , for all intent and design , as nonmeaningful as a label warning of , say , its water content , the survey results reflect an unsettling level of scientific ignorance in the American population .
The survey results are also diagnostic of chemophobia , an irrational fear of chemicals deftly parodied by a recent episode of Parks and Rec :
Chemophobia is also bright satirize by the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division , a satirical panic attack - campaign thatrebrands water as the dangerous essence “ dihydrogen monoxide . ”Borrowing on this conceit , Ilya Somin of the Washington Post imagineswhat a DNA nutrient recording label might look like :
WARNING : This intersection contain deoxyribonucleic acid ( DNA ) . The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a motley of disease in both animals and humans . In some configurations , it is a risk component for cancer and essence disease . fraught women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children .
The results of Lusk and Murray ’s survey also spotlight a contradiction fundamental to GMO labeling campaign that would see all genetically modified foods blanket - labeled as “ GMOs , ” no matter of the modification they carry , or the ends toward which they were produced . Prima facie , such go-ahead seem like a praiseworthy effort to cater consumers with information . What ’s ironic , UC Berkeley biologist Mike Eisen explainsin a recent web log station , is how little selective information consumers would in reality get from such a authorisation :
If you ’re disturbed that the GMOs you ’re eating might kill you , then you should want to know what specific limiting your solid food contains . I do n’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 safe of prosperous rice .
Similarly , if you are concerned that the transgenic production of plants resistant to sure herbicides encourage the unreasonable use of weed killer and triggers an weedkiller treadmill , then you’re able to boycott crops contain these limiting . But it does n’t make sense to oppose the use of crops engineered to resist disease , or to produce essential vitamin . Indeed , there are many , like UC Davis’sPam Ronald , who think that advanced maturation of GMOs is the secure way to advance organic and sustainable agribusiness . You may disagree with her , but it should be vindicated that the effect on agricultural practices varies calculate on the specific plant and type of alteration being view .
The Oklahoma State food resume reinforces Eisen ’s distributor 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 nutrient survey :
It would be a mistake to assume that far-flung political and scientific ignorance are the upshot of“the stupidity of the American voter,”as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber put it . Political ignoranceis not in the main the result of folly . For most people , it isa rational reaction to the tremendous size and complexness of government activity and the reality that the chance that their vote will have an impact on electoral upshot is super low . The same is true of much scientific ignorance . For many people , there is little welfare to understanding much about genetic science or DNA . Most Americans can even go about their daily business absolutely well without know that the Earth revolves around the Sunday . Even the smartest people are inevitably ignorant of the vast majority of info out there . We all have to focalize our time and vigor on larn that selective information which is most probable to be instrumentally useful , or at least render entertainment note value . For large identification number of hoi polloi , much basic political and scientific information does n’t make the cut .
Eisen write in his web log berth that , in supporters of blanket GMO label , he sees “ a faineant and ego - quenched acceptance of an internally tongue-tied piece of legislation that , rather than giving consumer 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 dreamer . But the Oklahoma State sketch has allot a intemperate blow that noble-mindedness .
When participants of the survey were ask if they had show any books about food and agriculture in the past year . ” some 81 % answered “ No , ” and 3 % answered “ I do n’t know . ” The 16 % who answered “ Yes ” were asked to give the title of the food and agriculture book they had most of late read :
The vast bulk of responses were of the form “ I do n’t remember ” or “ can not recall ” . firm 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 .
These upshot seem pregnant with implication , but I ’m too down to unpack them , at the instant .
Above , I drop a line that “ the termination indicate that most Americans do not understand the difference between DNA and a genetically modified food for thought . ” They could be indicative of something else , as well , namely flawed sight invention . A bit of people have raised this head in the last few days , butnone more cogently than Ben Lillie :
This seems like a classic case of priming … On encountering a question that does n’t quite make sense the sight respondent acted under the entirely reasonable ( and as it turns out , fictitious ) assumption that the researchers are n’t seek to fuck with them and answered the question in the context of the rest period of the survey — belike assuming it had something to do with GMOs . The fact that the number is so near to the number who support label GMOs ( 80 % and 82 % ) seems to me to strengthen that interpretation . lease ’s also remember that this is an online view where we do n’t know how the respondent were selected . That ’s certainly far from a fatal job , but should bring to the uncertainty .
In his post , which you could record here , Lillie also torpedoes the idea that 80 % of Americans do n’t know what DNA is , or that 80 % of Americans do n’t know most food turn back DNA , or – and , allow ’s be reliable , this is the genuine subtext when a statistic like this gains purchase and spreads on Twitter and Facebook – that 80 % of Americans are half-wit . In his post , Lillie citesa 2011 surveyin which “ 85 percent of adults know that all plants and animals have DNA.”In a blog berth issue Monday , Jayson Lusk ( who , you ’ll recall , conducted the FooDs view that gave rise to the 80 % statistic ) , cites another work :
Back in 1999 in a report in Science , Gaskell et al . asked true / untrue questions of the variety , “ Ordinary tomato do not contain factor while genetically modified tomatoes do . ” This question has been repeated in many subsequent study , and it is often found that many the great unwashed ( incorrectly ) say “ true ” .
Lillie conclude that while there is certainly a significant number of people who do not realize that there is desoxyribonucleic acid in food for thought , it ’s “ almost certainly not 80 % , ” offer that “ 15 % is a better guess . ” Lusk , for his part , cedes that “ the question on DNA labels probably could have been better phrase , ” but says he has “ a hard metre project ” how that he “ ‘ pull a fast one on ’ respondent or that the question was leading . ” He carry on :
The order of the items was randomized across respondents . As some commentators have pointed out , the question on DNA labels probably could have been better worded . It ’s worded as saying “ mandatory labels on foods containing DNA . ” So , let ’s say that you bonk a lot of foodstuff contains DNA and you want recording label on , say , nutritional content , then it could be that you ’d say “ backup ” not because you find DNA worrisome but because you require nutritional labels . I doubt that ’s how most people interpret the question , but it ’s a possibility .
Whether you think the percentage of Americans who fail to recognise the DNA cognitive content of food is close to 15 % or 80 % , the the true is a lot more insidious than “ Ha ! 4 in 5 Americans are scientifically illiterate ! ” Nor do the survey result mean , as Lusk points out , “ that people are not smart enough to make their own food decision . ” The 80 % bod makes for a avaricious headline ( I would know ) , and , as Lillie note , “ The US Public is incredibly unintelligent about scientific discipline ” is a very seductive narrative . But the actual situation is more complex than that , and merit to be treated as such .
The head of my original Wiley Post was to highlight the possible role of chemophobia in the populace ’s sight on solid food insurance policy and an ironic consequence of blanket GMO lables – something i still sustain is evidenced by the results of Lusk ’s desoxyribonucleic acid - in - solid food sight interrogation . But the response to the survey ’s findings reminds us to hold out drawing facile termination from sinful answer .
Both Ben Lillie ’s depth psychology and Jayson Lusk ’s reply to the coverage of his view are well worth reading in full . you may interpret Lillie ’s posthereand Lusk’shere .
food securityGeneticsGMOsScience
Daily Newsletter
Get the well technical school , skill , and civilization news in your inbox day by day .
News from the hereafter , delivered to your present .
Please select your desired newssheet and submit your email to upgrade your inbox .
You May Also Like
