Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

When Losing Opens the Mind

Collide-a-ScapeBy Keith KloorNovember 12, 2012 7:19 PM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Last week, I wondered what lessons the food movement would learn from the defeat of California's GMO labeling measure. I also asked (since pro-labeling efforts are moving ahead in other states) if leading foodies

believe that a campaign based on junk science and fear-mongering is the best way to achieve a political goal?

It's still too early to tell how the food movement, as a whole, will respond, but one of their biggest champions, Mark Bittman has signaled that a change in tactics is necessary. In a weekend NYT column, he wrote:

Labeling is important not so much because G.M.O.'s are "bad" "” they have not introduced harmful ingredients into the food chain, and those who argue that they have are taking a position that is difficult to defend "” but because once we know what's in food we can better influence how it is produced. Sensibly or not, many consumers are predisposed against G.M.O.'s; but G.M.O.'s are not exactly evil. A better choice might be a broader discussion about animal welfare. After all, Americans are also predisposed to treat animals fairly, and it could be that a struggle for transparency in livestock production would be more successful: mistreatment of animals is easy to prove, as are the many, many downsides of industrial livestock production.

Anyone who has been following Bittman's writing on the GMO issue knows this is a significant departure for him. A year ago he was suggesting that GM foods posed "real dangers" to human health. Just last month, Bittman wrote:

G.M.O.'s, to date, have neither become a panacea "” far from it "” nor created Frankenfoods, though by most estimates the evidence is far more damning than it is supportive.

The evidence he cites takes you to this article by a website called Organic Authority. It is a ridiculous piece of GMO-fear-mongering propaganda that has no place in intelligent debate on GM crops. So Bittman's sudden change of tone on GMOs (which translates to, never mind about everything I said before) is as notable as Sean Hannity's newly "evolved" position on illegal immigration. Will other influential pundits follow suit and have a change of heart on these respective issues? Time will tell.

3 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In