Over the weekend, Salon published a provocative piece, “Stop telling me I’m poisoning my kids”: Food crusaders, sancti-mommies and the rise of entitled eaters.” In it, writer Jenny Splitter explains that her child has severe peanut and tree-nut allergies and so when she learned of a purported link between food allergies and GMOs, she became “an all-organic, clean-eating sugar-free mom. . . . [spending] way too many hours hunting down obscure ingredients like coconut sugar and verifying whether my honey was indeed ‘real.'” But eventually she concluded, “My kids weren’t any healthier. I was just making everyone miserable spending time and money chasing what I thought was healthier food.”
Now Splitter has done a complete 180, not only reverting to conventional foods but becoming a pro-GMO activist who lobbies Congress on behalf of that cause. And apparently she has nothing but disdain for the moms she left behind, the ones still pathetically searching Whole Foods for the coconut sugar. Whether it’s moms who prefer to feed their children organic food, are worried about excessive sugar in their kids’ diets or who avoid GMO foods, Splitter calls all of these women “dietary sanctimommies” who are driving a new “epidemic of entitled eaters.” She further accuses them of being anti-science, fear-mongering, and far too trusting of “anecdotal evidence and sentimental narratives without ever examining them with any degree of skepticism or critical thinking.”
Harsh words. And yet, as someone who’s variously been called “a sanctimonious food fanatic,” a “food Nazi,” an “angry mommy” and a few less family-friendly epithets over the years, you might be surprised to hear that I agree with some of Splitter’s views. Here’s where she and I find common ground:
I’m not yet convinced there are proven negative health consequences from eating GMO foods or, at the very least, I believe the science surrounding the issue is complex and unresolved. And I’m humble enough to know that my law degree doesn’t qualify me to make that determination while far more highly trained minds continue to debate the issue. (By the same token, I’m curious to know if Splitter has adequate scientific training to be so very sure of the opposite conclusion? In her bio she calls herself a writer, storyteller and “science advocate.”) So while I do strongly support GMO labeling and also believe there are other, quite legitimate reasons to worry about GMOs (well articulated by Maywa Montenegro in this recent piece), I share Splitter’s skepticism – but not her obvious hostility – toward moms who claim to have cured their children of serious health problems (like autism or allergies) by switching to non-GMO food. I’m not rejecting these anecdotal stories out of hand, but I don’t believe we can draw firm conclusions from them.
Second, I agree with Splitter that the whole “clean eating” movement has led many people to lose sight of the big picture when it comes to the healthfulness of their own or their children’s diets. As she puts it pithily, “A non-GMO, organic, gluten-free cupcake sweetened with honey is still a god-damned cupcake, and a lot less healthful to a growing body than some conventional chicken and green beans.” Amen.
Finally, like Splitter, I’ve encountered many moms over the years who are so passionate about their child feeding practices (whether it’s anti-GMO, Paleo, vegan or some other approach) that they use highly inflammatory rhetoric to describe moms who deviate from that path. It’s just never appropriate, in my view, to tell another mom she’s “poisoning” her children by feeding them [fill in the blank: dairy, sugar, meat, GMOs, fast food, etc.], or to throw around words like “toxic” when describing the foods another mom chooses for her kids. Splitter herself was told by an anti-GMO activist that she’s “poisoning” her kids, and she has every right to take issue with that vitrolic language.
But here’s where Splitter and I part ways.
Splitter’s ultimate premise is that we Americans have “one of the safest food systems in the world,” so while “kids in other countries are dying from unsafe drinking water or contaminated food,” it’s “entitled” and “sanctimonious” for an American mom to “insist” on her own “entitled dietary choices,” whether they’re “anti-GMO, organic, sugar-free or all of the above.”
Peering through Splitter’s incredibly narrow lens on our food system, yes, we are indeed fortunate to have (maybe) safe water coming out of our taps, and a rate of food-borne illness that’s far lower than that of many countries (though we still have some serious food safety problems of our own). But aren’t we allowed – indeed, obligated – to undertake a broader assessment of our food system? And what do we find when we pull off Splitter’s blinders?
I’ll tell you what I see from my perch as a children’s food advocate. Childhood obesity has tripled since the 1980s. Children as young as age three are developing what used to be called “adult onset” diabetes. An astonishing one in ten American children suffer from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, a painful condition we didn’t even have a name for a few decades ago. Perhaps Splitter would disagree, but these deeply troubling developments don’t strike me as the product of a perfectly functioning food system. So, in light of the demonstrably poor health outcomes associated with the standard American diet, why is a mother considered “entitled” when she more carefully considers the food her children consume?
Similarly, precisely because the science is not determinative, why is it “arrogant” for a mother to choose to avoid GMO foods pending a conclusive determination of their safety? Or, even if we concede for the sake of argument that GMO foods are 100% safe, why is it “sanctimonious” to take into account the well-being of farm workers (or our environment, or our water supply, or our Monarch butterflies) exposed to the toxic pesticides sprayed on GMO crops? And if we accept Splitter’s contention that organic food is no better than conventionally grown food (which I do not), why is it “entitled” to also consider broader reasons for choosing organic food, such as water conservation, our soil quality, worker safety or the use of antibiotics in animals?
And even if none of those reasons are valid justifications for particular food choices, aren’t we all allowed to make them anyway? As a skeptical blogger writing about gluten-free diets once said:
If you stop eating gluten, and physical symptoms improve, have you proven some significant scientific correlation? Of course not. But let’s be realistic. . . . At some point it becomes obnoxious to demand to see the scientific evidence behind every lifestyle choice an individual makes. None of us live in some sort of perfect evidence-based world. Sometimes we all wing it.
Oddly enough, the blogger espousing that “live and let live” philosophy was none other than Jenny Splitter.
But now Splitter apparently sees herself as foot solider in the food “mommy wars,” and she disappointingly engages in the same ugly name-calling she once condemned. How is throwing around incendiary and patronizing terms like “sanctimommy” and “professional alarmist” any better than accusing another mom of “poisoning” her kids?
As a soldier on the other side of the battle line, I propose a cease-fire. I’ll feed my kids how I see fit, and you do the same. I won’t negatively judge your use of conventionally grown foods, and maybe you could resist making unfounded assumptions about me and my supposed gullibility when you see me toss an organic product into my shopping cart. And if our disagreements over food spill into the political sphere, as they necessarily will from time to time, let’s fight those battles on the merits and not resort to ad hominem – or should I say, ad Mom-inem – attacks. Deal?
[Hat tip to Casey Hinds of US Healthy Kids for alerting me to the Splitter piece.]
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Follow TLT on TLT’s Facebookook page, or Twitter, or get your “Lunch” delivered right to your email inbox by subscribing to my posts. You can download my FREE 40-page guide to “Getting Junk Food Out of Your Child’s Classroom” and be sure to check out my free rhyming video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!“
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Bettina Elias Siegel
Justin Gagnon says
Is it some kind of prerequisite for bloggers to write such outlandish, vitriolic pieces in order to get noticed? Is that like a “branding” thing for some writers? Their voice, I guess? It happens on both sides of the discussion, and it’s obnoxious. It’s obvious given our current political climate and news cycle that the polarizing strategy is successful, and thus there’s a dearth of balanced views out there. (You seem to be an exception here, Bettina.)
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Thank you for that, Justin. I do make an effort to avoid ad hominem attacks on this blog and I probably lose page views and Internet fame as a result. Maybe Splitter felt so attacked by anti-GMO activists that she lashed out in this piece? I’d prefer that explanation to the idea that she was just cynically seeking attention. Thanks, as always, for reading TLT and commenting here.
mommm!!! says
The point IS….as a mother do I want to participate in a food system that labels actual chemicals as “food”. I would no sooner feed my child spoonfuls of pesticide than I would an ear of corn that produces that same pesticide. Since I would not do that I do not feed my child gmo products.
But I’ve been saying this for a long time:
“Food is food. Chemicals are not food. Food like products are not food. They are food like products.”
Since no one in the planet knows what the long term effects are of a lifetime of gmo ingestion then it seems like a big risk to experiment on an entire generation of children. Especially when most countries have banned them.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
mommm!!! – This is why, even though I can’t speak with any certainty about the harm of ingesting GMO, I am a 100% supporter of labeling. I believe you have every right to know the origin of your food, and to make whatever decisions you wish about buying it (or not). Thanks for commenting here!
Jownie Mellor says
Water is a chemical. H2O. Every substance that you can see, taste, touch or smell is a chemical. Some chemicals are good , like water. Some chemicals, although 100% organic and natural, like cobra venom and e.coli, are bad.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
mommm!!! says
Yes. Water is a chemical. However, water is H2O and glyphosate is C3H8NO5P and was designed in a lab by people. Water is naturally occuring in the environment and glyphosate is not. Also, one causes cancer.
E.coli is not a chemical. And actually, only certain strains of e.coli are bad. However, the industrial raised meat system has actually been the birth place of new resistant strains of the bad stuff.
The Skeptical Brewer says
Actually, it is well understood what a lifetime of consumption of Genetically Engineered food will do to someone, because there is nothing in a Genetically Engineered food that is not understood. They are not creating new things that do not exist, they are combining things that are well understood. Just as we know what will happen when we add yeast to flour and water, we know what adding a genetic sequence will do. Once this is done, BTW, they test to ensure that the desired results were achieved. “Traditional” breeding methods do NOT have the scrutiny enforced upon Genetically Engineered foods, even though traditional breeding is rather random and Genetic Engineering is not.
.
Oh and, all of your food is made up of Chemicals. Your fear of Chemicals comes solely from your lack of understanding what a Chemical is. After all, do you really want food with no water?
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
mommm!!! says
I think it’s obvious to most when discussing “chemicals” in “food” we aren’t talking about chemical reactions in plants within the cellular structure. We are obviously talking about man made in a lab chemicals that are then added to processed food type products.
I mean, really.
Richard Bennett says
This food vs. chemicals thing is silly. Bruce Ames of Berkeley did a study in 1990 that showed 99.99% of the pesticides we ingest are created by the plants we eat. These are defense mechanisms that protect the plants from prematurely becoming food for some predator before they can reproduce. Whether the remaining .01 percent are synthetic or natural has no significance since organic pesticides are typically more toxic than synthetics.
So much misinformation, so little logic.
mommm!!! says
You’re talking about natural ways plants defend themselves in their respective environments, which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Adding man made chemicals to food products does not equal allelopathy. Good lawd people.
Ethan Tarr says
>Splitter calls all of these women “dietary sanctimommies” who are driving a new “epidemic of entitled eaters.” She further accuses them of being anti-science, fear-mongering, and far too trusting of “anecdotal evidence and sentimental narratives without ever examining them with any degree of skepticism or critical thinking.”<
And she would be correct!
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Well, of course I disagree with this sweeping statement, Ethan. Some people are not critical thinkers and others are well informed and making reasoned arguments – on both sides of any debate.
bose301s says
There is no reasoned argument to not eating GMOs, none. You claim the science is still not settled on GMO foods, au contrere, it absolutely is settled and it is absolutely all in 100% agreement, GMO food is perfectly safe. Not a single scientific study has found otherwise, not one, and the only one that seemed to was retracted due to fraud. I’m sorry but Jenny is 100% right here.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
Ruthie Burd says
As the Mom of a 25 year old son with autism, I have been exposed to my share of “magic” cures in my time. I think these quick fixes will be around as long as we do not know the specific causes of autism. I think when a parent is scared enough about their child’s future, they will always be prone to grasp at any idea, worried if they do not try this therapy or that special diet that they will in some way denied themselves and their child of a normal future. In the end you have to work with the child you have been gifted with who will promise to be a delight in their own right. This has been our experience. I can understand why parents become obsessive about these ideas. They are scared.
When our son was 9 , we embraced the gluten free and dairy free diet for him and because it was easier, we all followed the same diet. We took a fair bit of heat for this choice which was not very popular at the time but had long learned to not worry about what others thought and follow our own instincts.
Our son did improve but to be honest, I think that the biggest difference for our family was that since there were not many gluten and dairy free options in retail, I had to do more cooking from scratch. Just regular stuff – nothing fancy. Meat and potatoes, rice and lots of vegetables….just a few sweets because they took a lot of effort to make…. easier to offer an apple or a banana to be honest. We ate more just FOOD… not necessarily organic and in 1999 , who knew much about GMOs.
In the meantime, I started a company called the Lunch Lady which today serves around 1300 elementary schools in Canada [no cafeterias up here] and in the past 22 years, I have learned so much about kids and foods and families.
I have a great deal of sympathy for busy families, but I do think we have lost a common sense attitude to food in favour of food fads and the irresistible charms of buying everything in bulk to get a deal.. We eat way too much party food on a daily basis and not enough fruits and veggies and just ordinary unsexy foods that can provide a good source of food energy.
I do not know what the answer is but I think that we have a really flawed attitude to food in our culture. We idolize chefs who cook fabulous meals on TV, demonize some foods, feel guilty or lie about our trips to the drive thru [which we all do now and then] and read daily about all the dangers associated with eating. We have a love/hate relationship with our food.
It is almost like the epidemic of diabetes and other childhood illnesses we are now facing has some perceived commonalities with the epidemic of autism and we are all scared, looking for a quick fix or somewhere to lay blame.
Is there something in the food itself? I cannot say but there is something to be concerned about in the way we think about food, the politicizing of it, and how divisive an issue it can become.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I couldn’t agree with you more, Ruthie, on all of the points you raise about our society’s quite contradictory relationship with food. We are 100% on the same page. Thank you for sharing your story here.
Aviva Goldfarb says
yes, yes, yes Bettina! Another well reasoned and well written plea for sanity and reasonable caution.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Thank you, Aviva!
Robin says
I was seething when I read this the other day in Slate. Wondering how in the world Slate could publish such a poorly written, poorly researched, one-sided essay on this subject. You can’t look to food like it’s a cure. In spite of doing everything I was told to do (like he author) when my son was younger (breastfeeding, homemade, no processed food, all organic, local, etc), he still has severe food allergies, asthma, seasonal allergies…you name it! But just because doing what I was supposed to do w/food ‘didn’t work’ or because he ‘didn’t seem any healthier’ like this author suggests, doesn’t mean adding a bunch or processed foods with pesticides & too much sodium and sugar is going to make it better!? Crazy reasoning. No-or-fewer pesticides in food should contribute over the long-haul to overall health, not a quick fix. I hadn’t had a chance to write about it myself this week but was so glad to see your voice out there to counter Splitter’s ridiculous argument (that was obviously commissioned by someone benefiting from GMO products). I will say, yes, maybe in some circles people get preachy about their organic/local/raw/vegetarian/gluten-fee- whatever food–just keep a lid on it and don’t preach when people have different views on it than you. That should be the message.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Thank you for reading the post, Robin, and for coming by to share your views! And if you do write your own response to Splitter’s piece, be sure to come back here and share the link.
bose301s says
Organic foods use pesticides, in fact they use more pesticides than GMO foods and the pesticides they use are actually much more harmful to people than those used in conventional or GMO farming.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
mommm!!! says
Simply not true.
Alicia says
Yes.. The author of the salon article MUST be a paid shill because you disagree with her opinion. You make me sad for humanity.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Alicia – I think you’re new here and I’m posting your comment because welcome open debate of all issues. However, in the future, statements like “You make me sad for humanity” will result in your comment being barred. Please take a look at my posted comments policy for more information. Thanks!
Betsy (Eco-novice) says
Very well said. I appreciate you thoughtfully addressing and disputing the overreaching and inflammatory claims and characterizations made in her piece. Shared.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Thank you, Betsy!
Coolernearlake says
Sorry, I loved discovering the “sanctimommy” label! I ran into my first one in my very first childbirth class (she trapped me with a little discussion at the soda machine down the hall, about Diet Coke and brain damage.) I soon realized that there are always going to be others who are very eager to let you know your parenting failings–the sanctimommies. Food isn’t the only topic. Pretty much every little decision you make for your child is fair game–should they have worn a sweater? aren’t they too young to use scissors…or a microwave? you’re getting her vaccinated for HPV, really? shouldn’t he be taking music lessons/going to the SAT tutoring/not playing video games?
Most of the other moms out there are just trying to do their best to take care of their kids. A reminder to all of us that we should not pretend to be saints while acting like snots seems like a great idea to me.
Lauren S. says
As a mother, a farmer, and a crop science graduate I am very sad to see so much scientific ignorance amongst women. You say you want gmo labelling? Why? Do you even have a reason why “gmo” foods are different than “non-gmo” foods? The wannabe bloggers that tell their readers that “pesticides and gmo’s are bad” are flaunting their scientific ignorance. “Non-gmo” foods are genetically altered to withstand patented herbicides. The herbicides are not as effective as glyphosate so more must be sprayed to kills the weeds. New crop varieties are being developed with extra tolerance genes to withstand more herbicide. You say this is healthy? By claiming non gmo foods are better than gmo foods without providing any scientific evidence, you are encouraging your readers to poison not only their kids, but other adults who eat the food too. You claim you worry about us farm workers being exposed to toxic chemicals, yet you claim you want non gmo foods. This passes me off. You don’t care about us, you care about a label. You claim you worry about monarchs being poisoned by gmo crops without providing a citation then admit that you purchase organic foods. Did you know that insecticides that are harmful to beneficial insects are used in organic agriculture? Please research organic pesticides and various non-gmo breeding methods. You are encouraging old fashioned agricultural technologies while scientifically educated people are working hard to develop new crop traits (through transgenic abound non transgenic methods) and developing newer, safer pesticides. This affects everyone’s health, including your kids’.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Hi Lauren. I feel like you may not have read my piece carefully, at least to the extent you believe I’m promoting nonGMO food over GMO. If you wanted to take the time to read my archive of 1200+ blog posts, I promise you won’t find a single one which does so. That said, for the reasons cited in the Montenegro piece cited above, I do feel we have reason to proceed with caution re GMO. (As for Monarch butterflies specificially, here’s one cite in support of the proposition.) You obviously discount these concerns, which is your right, but clearly this is an area in which reasonable and educated minds can differ. Therefore, yes, I’m a proponent of labeling – even outside the context of GMO, I’ve always been a strong proponent of food transparency. At any rate, thanks for coming by to share your views here. While we may not see eye-to-eye, I can promise you that unlike Jenny Splitter, I will never engage in name-calling or allow my commenters to engage in it either. That’s something I’ve worked hard to acheive here, and of which I’m quite proud.
bose301s says
You say your law degree doesn’t allow you to fully comment or understand this topic then proceed to expound upon it at length and incorrectly. When someone who does have a degree and knowledge to talk to this you dismiss them, I’m sorry but you are right, you do not have the knowledge to talk about this, and sadly like so many others, when someone who does have this knowledge tries to teach you, you don’t listen.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
mommm!!! says
I’m also a mom with ag degrees. There are many of us who prefer traditional farming that requires less inputs than conventional and/or GMO/industrial farming. This often includes growing non commercial varieties of foods.
Industrial farming does not get to dictate to everyone else how their style of farming is somehow superior to everyone else. Plenty of amazing food is grown without all the inputs that you use all day long, every day, all over the world.
I love your reference to “safer pesticides” after a long tirade about how safe and wonderful the current pesticides you think are. If they are so safe and warm fuzzy now, why do safer ones need to be developed? It’s contradictory.
bw1 says
I can definitely empathize with Ms. Splitter. What’s intriguing is your reaction and response. You really don’t get the issue, do you?
It’s not about your choices for your own child. It’s not about your reliance on unsettled science or your being unqualified to evaluate research (see my comments on the study regarding sugar reduction.) It’s not even about your hand wringing about what can be pretty much minimized as first world problems.
It’s about the presumption in your efforts to coerce others to facilitate, involuntarily join, and financially underwrite these choices and alter their traditions, customs, and social practices to relieve you of effort and having to teach your child some backbone in order to implement what are, again, your personal choices. At least a quarter of your posts directly pursue government imposition of restrictions or compulsions on others in the service of views on food that they do not share.
If you want your kid to eat only hamburger made from whole cuts of meat, which is a personal esthetic preference based on your wasteful urban first world sensibilities about livestock utilization, fine, just supply the meat yourself on your own nickel. However, if you’re going to put your kid on the school lunch dole, don’t presume to demand luxury burgers on my coerced taxes. When you do so, you’re no different than a Section 8 recipient whining about a lack of air conditioning and jacuzzi.
If you care about whether your food is GMO-free, organic, or what have you, stop lobbying for Big Brother to coerce labeling to suit your preferences. Follow the example of generations of your co-religionists and cooperatively form a private infrastructure for certifying that products conform to your particular food preferences. That way, government doesn’t have to waste my tax money and raise my food bill to cater to your idiosyncracies. As a bonus, if you and others disagree on some detail of what qualifies, you can form competing organizations to serve each of your sets of criteria, and our leaders needn’t debate whether grafting plants qualifies as GMO when they could be dealing with the current real existential threats our country faces.
Similarly, if you want GMO labeling, limit your business to those vendors who have made a voluntary decision to be GMO free and have so labeled their products, rather than demanding that every vendor alter their labeling at government gunpoint to reduce your effort to service your preferences.
If you don’t want your kid eating cupcakes, then lay down the law with your kid. Don’t ask the government to police voluntary, legal, at will social interactions between students. If you lack the backbone to play the heavy with your kid, then send him to a private school and pay the freight to farm out your parental control duties.
Don’t promote anti-fast food propaganda in the government schools, and no one will feel the need to push their rebuttal media into the schools.
In short, stop trying to make your dietary preferences, beliefs, hangups, and bogeymen other peoples’ problem.
OK, that would be your cue to remind people that I always disagree with you* and you’re too forlorn to rationally respond to any of my points.
* a false assertion, by the way.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Bw1: I dutifully post your comments because, as I state in my comments policy, no viewpoint will ever be excluded here so long as it’s civillly expressed. That said, after many, many years of sparring with you in the comments section on a variety of issues, I’ve come to see that you and I are fundamentally so far apart philosophically, there’s little use in that exercise (and, frankly, I’m not willing to double or triple my unpaid writing workload by doing so.) I will continue to lay out my beliefs in my blog posts, you may continue to refute them in your comments, and I’ll let my readership evaluate the debate on the merits.
bw1 says
What debate? You won’t even defend your position. You make strong claims, and then when asked for evidence to back them up, are silent (e.g. I’m still waiting for a citation of a single person made sick by “pink slime”)
Our only difference lies in your willingness/desire to use government to force your values, many of which I happen to share, upon others. That particular trait, not your views on food itself, is the basis for the sanctimommy label.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Bw1: In the context of school food and food served in classrooms (the two main areas on which you and I have clashed in the past), I’m always a little baffled that you accuse me of trying to “use government” to promote my values when in fact these are governmental institutions and programs (schools and the NSLP) for which standards and rules must necessarily be set. (I’ll address GMO labeling in a separate comment.)
In general, though, I think you and I just have fundamentally different views about the proper role of government in helping to feed America’s 15 million food insecure kids. In case I’ve left any doubt on the matter, I want to see those kids fed as healthfully as possible. Your eyebrow-raising allusions to people being “on the dole,” their desire for “jacuzzis,” and your “coerced taxes” (as well as similar such statements you’ve made in the past) lead me to believe you feel otherwise. That’s a divide I don’t think we can bridge and it’s why I sometimes simply tire of debate with you.
On pink slime, I provided ample support for all of my views in 2012 and I won’t relitigate the issue here, but you’re certainly free to search my archives where all of those posts may still be found. As for your particular requested “citation,” perhaps you missed this post: https://thelunchtray.com/minnesota-health-official-mans-death-likely-caused-by-tainted-lftb/
bw1 says
“In the context of school food and food served in classrooms (the two main areas on which you and I have clashed in the past)”
You need to go back and review your own blog. We’ve never clashed on food served in classrooms. I’m fully against teachers serving or using as a reward any food, let alone junk food. The only way we’ve differed on school food is on the question of local versus centralized control.
Yes, we differ on the role of government, particularly centralized, rather than localized government. You see government as a hammer to beat others into conformance with your values and preferences. Hence the sanctimommy label. You ask for a cease fire, but there can never be a cease fire when government fills such a central role in every aspect of people’s lives – every decision becomes a high stakes political football, and when it comes to food, the dominant consensus has changed enough in our lifetimes that it becomes a carousel of self contradiction.
If you wish to feed children who are “food insecure,” then start a charity, and operate according to whatever views you desire. Others like Ms. Splitter, can form similar organizations according to their views, and we’ll see whose methods are more successful. It would be a far more effective way to see if you’re right than to use government to impose a top-down, one-size-fits-all orthodoxy and effectively outlaw what real scientists call a control group.
If you wanted to mount a meaningful, scientifically sound campaign against obesity, you’d look for what the scientifically literate call the independent variable, and quickly see that it’s activity levels, not diet, and you’d be campaigning at least as much to get kids exercising as you are to change what they eat. I’ll believe you care about obesity when I see you go after video games with at least as much vigor as you attack cupcakes.
Regarding your citation, the majority of the 25 cases in the outbreak resulted from steaks, not ground beef, and in the 7 that involved ground beef, not all involved LFTB. If this is your idea of a sound scientific basis for condemning LFTB, you have a serious problem understanding the difference between correlation and causality.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Bw1 – we can have theoretical debates all day long on the proper role of government but it’s a simple fact that the National School Lunch Program isn’t going anywhere. So no, I’m not going to go “start a charity” to feed the 21 million kids who eat a subsidized lunch. Instead, I’m going to focus my efforts on improving the NSLP as it currently exists. Thanks, though, for your perspective.
bw1 says
Well, then, as long as government is feeding our kids, what it feeds them will be one big political football, and the “cease fire” you seek with Ms. Splitter is impossible.
That’s the other side of your statist, nannystate paternalist government ideals. Since government is force, when it handles an endeavor, that endeavor becomes a zero sum game where someone is always being coerced to give up something near and dear to them. No one can opt out and decide not to play. For you to get your way, other parents have to be denied theirs, or someone’s hard earned money has to be taken from them to promote your beliefs which they find anathema. Of course, living as you do in Texas (why a flaming leftist would choose to do so is beyond me) you have probably seen your share of the converse to that.
This is the entire reason we bar religion from the public schools. What you appear not to understand is how much any debatable issue boils down to a religious conflict.
You’ll continue to be opposed by people like Ms. Splitter until you start looking for ways to limit the impact of your beliefs to those who share in them.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
RE: “Well, then, as long as government is feeding our kids, what it feeds them will be one big political football, and the “cease fire” you seek with Ms. Splitter is impossible.” Yes, setting federal child nutrition standards is indeeed a big political football, and my advocacy seeks to influence how the football gets tossed around. (In a nutshell, I favor non-partisan, science-based standards set by the Institute of Medicine. Hard to see why that position so infuriates you, but apparently it does.)
But as for my proposed “cease fire” with Ms. Splitter, I guess you didn’t read my post with much care. I never said we should abandon robust debate in the political sphere, I simply asked that we hold off on the name-calling.
As for “why a flaming leftist would choose to live in Texas is beyond me” – well, you really might want to come down here some time and throw off your obvious ingorance and biases about the great state of Texas. Every one of our major cities votes Democratic. We’re a minority-majority state. My own city, Houston, is the most diverse in the nation, even more so than New York City, and the first to elect an openly gay mayor. Over 100 languages are spoken in my kids’ district. And, oh yeah, our Tex-Mex rocks.
bw1 says
What’s infuriating is that, even in a post where you admit some of the science is unsettled, you’re willing to force the current best guess upon 320 million people. As I’ve alluded to elsewhere in this thread, the whole grain push about which you’re so passionate is scientifically on the way out in favor of less grain period. The science is fluid, and the government has already had to backpedal pretty heavily on multiple occasions as the wisdom it codified into law was shown to be faulty. Don’t forget transfats were in response to the (now debunked) great government nutritional crusades of the past.
As for Ms. Splitter’s name calling, welcome to real politics. Ms. Splitter understands that most voters can’t comprehend dialectic, and can only be reached by rhetoric, which she’s using quite effectively. It’s not my preference, but you wouldn’t feel the need to bring her up if she wasn’t making headway.
Lastly, you were the one who complained in multiple posts about the dominant politics on the statewide level in TX. All I can say is you chose to live there.
Stephan Neidenbach says
As someone who walked from office to office with Jenny in DC, I would be more than happy with your cease fire offer. That involves not putting arbitrary meaningless labels on my food that does nothing but scare people into eating your food. We are fighting back because our food is being threatened. Cheerios and Grape Nuts both became less nutritious because of antiGMO fearmongering when they caved and changed their recipes. It goes beyond just labels. People on your side of the fence are actively trying to stop restaurants and grocery stores from carrying next generation biotech food.
Your insistence on proof of zero risk is ridiculous. Nothing you consume is held to that standard. There is not one single reason to put labels on my food demonizing a technology that is serving as a useful tool to solve real problems. There is not one single risk that applies to biotech ingredients that doesn’t also apply to conventional ones. You want a cease fire? Stop trying to impact the food my family eats with anti-science labels. You started this war. We would love nothing more than for you to go eat your organic food in peace. So go hunt down your faith based labels and leave the rest of us alone. Until then we are done playing defense.
Kristen says
Well said Stephan! “Stop trying to impact the food my family eats with anti-science labels.” My sentiments exactly!
me says
Stalk much Stephan?! Keep an eye out for more tweets!
bw1 says
THIS ^
Again, the Kosher food industry is illustrative. Groups who want their food to meet certain criteria form private organizations to certify those products whose producers VOLUNTARILY decide to pursue those groups’ business and grant such producers the right to use their label. They don’t ask government to force the rest of the world to label their products traife.
If a group of people representing a 1-2% sliver of the population, who were denied basic property rights until a couple hundred years ago, can achieve this, why can’t the sanctimommies?
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
TR says
Bw1, that was probably the best comment I’ve seen about this ridiculous, incessant whining for a label. There are thousands of non gmo and organic options for scientifically illiterate zealots to seek out if they are scared of perfectly safe foods. I have not seen a single logical explanation for why anyone should have to pay even a penny more for a label to satisfy this ideology. If you want a truce, stick to your non gmo and organic foods that are already labeled for your convenience and to gouge your wallets for no benefit and stop pushing your beliefs on others.
bw1 says
Exactly. No one is trying to force them to eat GMO’s, so why are they trying to force the rest of us to participate in what amounts to their religion?
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
Michael Cooper says
Despite bw1’s overt Libertarian theme their argument is compelling. Forcing regulation based on unsubstantiated beliefs is flat-out the wrong choice.
There is not controversy about the GMOs on the market with regard to the vast majority of the scientific community. Implying there is a controversy within the field is no different than denying anthropogenic contributions to climate change or claiming that creationism is a valid alternative to evolution.
As Stephan already pointed-out one cannot provide a 100% guarantee of, well, anything, much less risk. This is definitely true when it comes to liability as a legal obligation, right? I’m just a humble PhD in Biology, not a lawyer. With regard to feed/food safety there are over 350 studies with at least 17 of them being multigenerational.
With the organic produce you purchase do you know which of those organic cultivars were developed using either chemical or radiation-induced random mutagenesis? Is that information organic growers should be obligated to provide? If the GMO approach to cultivar development implies some kind of difference then certainly random mutation does.
I have no idea how closely you’ve followed these arguments or looked at representative samples of the character of arguments between “pro” and “anti” individuals. While my observations are anecdotal they are extensive. Being called a “sanctimommy” is, of course, wrong in any kind of mature debate, but that’s a far cry from death wishes/threats and far fouler language. (This is without addressing the blatantly illegal harassment endured by people like Stephan.) While biotechnology proponents certainly do wind-up engaging in fallacy it has been, in my personal experience, the place anti-biotechnology advocates generally start in discussion.
And, no, I don’t work for Monsanto or any biotech firm. I’m just a biologist that has read a lot of literature.
bw1 says
“Despite bw1’s overt Libertarian theme their argument is compelling. Forcing regulation based on unsubstantiated beliefs is flat-out the wrong choice.”
That’s a little self-contradicting. The second sentence is a pretty good synopsis of libertarianism.
However, it’s nice to see other people see the issue.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
Casey says
Maybe the mothers who choose organics have been reading the information coming out of the CDC about antibiotics resistance & the role of the conventional meat industry.
Baugher says
Seriously… Stephan is in charge of Biotech?? Now that’s news! You want to talk about Fear Mongering? How about creating Chipotle illness outbreaks RIGHT AFTER announcing they’re going GMO-FREE, what a convenient coincidence! Need more Fear Mongering? Stephan claims that we should FEAR organic food bc of e. coli, now that’s a scare tactic! Has anyone informed silly Troll about how e. coli is one of the MOST common illnesses from food? Does he realize the most recent e. coli outbreak was on GMO food?
Your argument is a cookie cutter argument that ALL the proGMO trolls use. “Zero proof?” History is proof. “Not one single risk that applies to biotech ingredients that doesn’t also apply to conventional ones”… um, yeah, the MOST RECENT e. coli outbreak was CONVENTIONAL, not organic. Did you read the news articles all the way? So you’re saying e. coli and salmonella don’t apply to conventional food? Now there’s some More News! Someone call the grocery stores, restaurants, and FDA to inform them that ALL food borne illnesses are from organic food only Wow Stephan, seriously time to call the newspapers and set this straight! We’ve all been wrong this whole time!
Anti-Science = No Independent Peer-Reviewed Long Term Safety Studies, now THAT’S anti-science!
-E. coli and Samonella are applicable to BOTH Conventional and Organic crops.
-Organic Seed is created simply by harvesting the seed, no radiation like their Fear Mongering claims.
-Ph.D in Biology Doesn’t make you a Doctor.
-Plant Scientists and Plant Geneticists aren’t Doctors.
-No Long Term Independent Safety Studies on GMOs or their Pesticides.
-No, we don’t need to poison 3rd world countries to save them.
-Yes, Pesticides DO Kill Bees.
-GMOs are Inherently Created to be Used with Pesticides.
-Pesticides are Meant to Kill by Disrupting the Digestive System.
-Pesticides are Usually Applied by Illegal and Low-Pay Laborers who aren’t part of the “Family” who owns the “Farm” and they wear Protective Gear to apply.
So yeah, I’ll continue growing MY OWN FOOD at over 6,000′ altitude where it snows in winter AND going to buy organic produce at local Farmer Markets. It’s not as hard as you make it seem. I won’t eat your trash food. Screw eating your Religious Biotech Food.
Stephan wants a cease-fire? Stop trying to impact the food organic farmers grow and what my family eats with your anti-science faith. Stop contaminating the already successful food supply. You proGMO trolls are nothing but a cult based religion, loving and worshiping Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and all the others. You believe whatever they say, and none of you are willing to provide an independent long term safety study. You’re not pro-science, you’re pro-religion, Biotech religion that is. You started this war by changing the food our ancestors ate. We would love nothing more than for you to go eat your Grape Nuts, Cheerios, and questionable biotech food in peace. So go hunt down your faith based biotech food and leave the rest of us alone. Until then we are done playing defense. Good luck with the manipulation.
Alicia says
Having a Ph.D. actually does mean that they are a doctor. They hold a doctorate in biology. Which is a lot more education than you or I. And they did mention that there are 17 multigenerational studies. That implies longevity. I have read that GMO’s have been studied extensively since the late 70’s early 80’s. That’s over 30 years. That’s a long time for a myriad of very intelligent doctorate-holding scientists to study a subject. Your anger is evident in your post and I feel as though that’s evidence of your slow acknowledgement of your ignorance. You say you’re not anti science but you want to deny the existence of studies that don’t confirm your beliefs. Science doesn’t care what you believe, science cares about what it can prove, over and over again. This argument will continue until we can educate the masses on basic scientific language, and eradicate the fear with knowledge.
Michael Cooper says
This kind of reply falls within “acceptable” yet the milder ad hom towards Bettina was warned as subject to rejection in the future.
OK, that delineates the landscape here quite clearly.
bw1 says
I’ve generally found that more noise a forum makes about “civility,” the more likely that the definition of civility is viewpoint sensitive.
That said, Alicia would have done better to say “That sort of reasoning makes me sad for humanity.”
Bettina Elias Siegel says
If that were actually the case, your own references to me as a “sanctimommy” here would have disqualified your comments from publication.
bw1 says
That statement might make a modicum of sense if I had actually referred to you as a sanctimommy. I haven’t. My only use of the term here has been in pointing out why others have used the label. Personally, I don’t think the term fits, because sanctimony, while judgmental, isn’t coercive. I think fascism covers the objectionable behavior better than sanctimony. At every turn, you take the coercive approach, forcing others to conform to your preferences:
-Birthday treats – longstanding mainstream custom in which you don’t want your kid to participate, so you expect everyone else to suspend the custom.
-GMO labeling – new trend of GMO avoidance from your small vocal cadre. You expect everyone else to pay for labeling – no market segment may abstain.
-Regional foods in school lunches – you want the central government to force people over 1000 miles away from you to alter their customs to conform to your belief in whole grains, which a large body of current science does not support.
I don’t want my kid eating more grain, whole or otherwise, because humans did not evolve to eat grain. I have the requisite scientific understanding to realize that pasta, bread, and potatoes are no better than soda and candy bars by the time they reach the stomach. You don’t see me lobbying for a starch ban in school lunches, even at the local level.
I have the scientific training to realize that a 10-20 year old obesity epidemic cannot be blamed on 50 year old dietary habits. However, you don’t see me lobbying Congress to force your kid’s school to become a bootcamp with daily forced
5 mile runs.
bw1 says
Wow, fabricating the Chipotle outbreak? We used to play a party game to see who could make up the most outlandish conspiracy theory, but that takes the cake! So, did they subvert the entire government regulatory infrastructure or just sneak into the Chipotle commissary and poop on all the lettuce?
Great intro for a bullet list of fallacies:
“E. coli and Samonella are applicable to BOTH Conventional and Organic crops.”
But they’re more likely on organic crops which are typically fertilized with livestock waste.
“Organic Seed is created simply by harvesting the seed, no radiation like their Fear Mongering claims.”
Somebody is ignorant. Mutagenic radiation is part of the natural environment. That’s how evolution works.
“Ph.D in Biology Doesn’t make you a Doctor.”
Um, actually, it most specifically DOES make one a doctor, and in many ways makes them MORE qualified than an MD to speak to the issues at hand. Biologists are trained entirely in the relevant science, whereas MD’s spend a great deal of time learning other aspects of their profession that are completely unrelated to the potential impact of GMO foods (like psychiatry, orthopedics, etc.)
“Plant Scientists and Plant Geneticists aren’t Doctors”
IF they have a doctorate, yes they are, and again, they are more qualified to speak to this issue than MD’s.
“No, we don’t need to poison 3rd world countries to save them.”
But a great deal of their mortality rates have been directly tied to actions born of unfounded fears of poisoning them. (google malaria DDT)
“GMOs are Inherently Created to be Used with Pesticides.”
Really? Explain how GMO salmon are created to be used with pesticides. Explain what genetic mods to change ripening time are created to be used with pesticides.
“Pesticides are Meant to Kill by Disrupting the Digestive System.”
No, the majority are meant to attack the central nervous system.
“So yeah, I’ll continue growing MY OWN FOOD at over 6,000′ altitude where it snows in winter AND going to buy organic produce at local Farmer Markets”
Knock yourself out. No one is lifting a finger to stop you, so what’s your issue?
Stephan Neidenbach says
Thanks for proving my point.
Joe says
Why gmo labeling versus non-gmo labeling?
bw1 says
EXACTLY!!
You don’t see people who keep Kosher demanding a law that the all the non-kosher foods be explicitly labeled as traife.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I’ll reprint here my comment below: “You have it exactly backwards, bw1. According to poll after poll, the percentage of consumers in this country who desire GMO labeling is somwhere around 90-95%. This is not some small religious minority, like those interested in purchasing Kosher or Halal food, but rather the vast majority of the marketplace. So perhaps it is you, a staunch opponent of such labeling, who is seeking to impose his/her personal beliefs on an unwilling majority.”
bw1 says
Ibid. December 16, 2015 at 9:59 pm below
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Here’s a follow-up post with my view on GMOs and labeling. http://bit.ly/1YaEtVT
bw1 says
Which in no way impacts the point I made about coercing the participation of unwilling parties.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
You have it exactly backwards, bw1. According to poll after poll, the percentage of consumers in this country who desire GMO labeling is somwhere around 90-95%. This is not some small religious minority, like those interested in purchasing Kosher or Halal food, but rather the vast majority of the marketplace. So perhaps it is you, a staunch opponent of such labeling, who is seeking to impose his/her personal beliefs on an unwilling majority.
bw1 says
I have nothing backwards. You fail to see that the parallelism lies not in the size of the group but in the nature of the preferences and demands. The number of people who desire something is not a valid basis for comparison, since the entire point of our constitutional republic is to protect the rights of majorities from being trod upon by the majority.
The issue of who is improperly imposing their beliefs on others is not a majority/minority-based question. A good friend of mine who is Jewish recalls being forced to recite Christian prayers in public school back in the early 60’s. That was clearly the preference of the majority, so by your criteria it could not possibly have been an imposition of beliefs on others, right?
Your argument about polls actually reinforces my point. The larger the percentage of consumers who want something is, the more demand-based incentive there is for vendors to voluntarily offer it, and the LESS need there should be for government to mandate it. If tiny minorities can effectively implement market-based private solutions to insure the food they buy conforms with their beliefs, then it should be child’s play for 90% of consumers to get what they want from the market.
If there aren’t enough vendors complying with your preferences, that’s a big fat clue that your polls are wrong – clearly, among the vast majority of those who say they want labeling, their desire isn’t strong enough to impact their purchasing decisions, or some little co-op making non-GMO foods would be the next Google by now.
I am not seeking to impose ANYTHING on ANYONE. This claimed majority of yours is perfectly free to condition their buying decisions on whatever criteria they wish, and the FACT that numerous vendors are already providing said labeling is proof that under the status quo I’m supporting, nothing is being imposed with respect to GMO labeling. Consumers and vendors are free to choose what labeling they will demand and supply. You are the one seeking to have government, through violent, coercive force, deny people a choice.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
“the parallelism lies not in the size of the group but in the nature of the preferences and demands. The number of people who desire something is not a valid basis for comparison, since the entire point of our constitutional republic is to protect the rights of majorities from being trod upon by the majority.” ???? I’m sorry, bw1, it’s been a long time since I graduated from law school, but the last time I checked, being against GMO labeling does not put you in a protected class under the Constitution. This is *exactly* the sort of issue in which the majority may impose its will on the minority through the legislative process.
bw1 says
There is no such thing as a protected class under the Constitution. While the courts speak of “suspect classes” with regard to discrimination law, the term “protected class” is a product of political rhetoric. GMO labeling is not the sort of thing the Founders saw as a proper governmental function. This nation was founded on the principle that, as long as I don’t materially violate the rights of others, then I have the right to be left alone by the government to do as I wish. Labels are speech. The sale of food is the execution of an at will transaction by voluntary participants. No one’s rights are being violated.
The Kosher/Halal food industries, regardless of their size, stand as clear evidence that lack of a government labeling mandate in no way violates anyone’s rights or limits their ability to buy the food they wish. Imposing GMO labeling, by contrast, compels speech on the part of vendors and limits choices and raises prices for consumers. If I don’t want to participate in your anti-GMO religion, I shouldn’t have to.
Clearly, any producer who goes to the trouble of insuring their supply chain is GMO free is going to tout that attribute on their labeling. Thus, you already DO have effective GMO labeling – if it doesn’t say GMO free, it’s probably not. What you’re really demanding is that those who choose not to eliminate GMO’s from their products explicitly call out their non-participation in the anti-GMO cult – the equivalent of those who keep Kosher demanding that all non-Kosher producers stamp “traife” on their products. This has NO value other than an implied endorsement of your belief that
GMO’s are double-plus ungood and would only be purchased by thoughtcriminals who hate their own children. It’s forcing them to disseminate propaganda. That’s anathema to the founding principles of this nation.
You might as well force every vendor to advertise on their product a litany of all the various beliefs they and their product violate. Some people seek out cage-free eggs, let’s make all the other egg suppliers stamp “we cage our hens” on their cartons. Should we require coffee producers who don’t meet some activist’s definition of fair trade to label their product as “exploitation coffee?”
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Whether GMO labeling can survive a constitutional challenge remains to be seen, bw1. As you may know, in 2014, a district court gave pro-labeling supporters a victory by applying a “rational basis” test to the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) claim that Vermont’s GMO labeling law violated its First Amendment rights. Under this lower level of scrutiny, the court upheld the VT law.
It has been argued that a more recent Supreme Court decision (Reed) potentially opens the door for opponents of GMO labeling to argue that the highest “strict scrutiny” test must apply. But whether Reed would in fact apply in this context is entirely an open question, one that has yet to be litigated. Moreover, a state’s interest in requiring GMO disclosure could well be found by a court to be a “compelling” one, thus meeting even a heightened, strict scrutiny standard. (In the VT case, the court favorably cited the state’s interests in requiring disclosure as: the potential for health consequences from human consumption of GMO; the desire to accommodate religious beliefs and practices regarding GMO; the desire to promote informed consumer decision-making; and to address the potential unintended consequences from GMO food production to non-GMO crops and the environment.)
I’m going to let those open legal questions play out in the courts. If you would like to litigate them here in my comments section, you’ll have to do so without an opposing party; the last word is yours.
bw1 says
There are all sorts of things the courts currently approve that would make the Founders spin in their graves. That some statist judges might agree with your goals doesn’t make them any less fascist. It also doesn’t make the call for mandatory labeling any less an admission that a tiny, historically persecuted minority is able to meet their needs without Big Brother stepping in, while your co-ideologues come up helpless and dependent.
The fact remains that you have consistently called for the rest of the nation to be conscripted into your dogma on food.
By the way, I call cattle feces on your claim of 90% support for a labeling mandate – what happened in three leftist stronghold states where referendums to require GMO labeling failed in the last few years? (CO, CA, OR)
Laura says
Just for the sake of clarification….a “sanctimommy” isn’t a mom who has strong beliefs about how to raise their child. Saying “I believe GMO foods are bad for my kid so I am going to do everything I can to make sure he/she never eats them” does not make you a sanctimommy. However, adding “but if you want to feed your child poison then go ahead” to the end of the sentence does.
You would also be labeled a sanctimommy if you said something like “those moms who talk about the evils of GMO are just nut-cases and bad parents.”
There can be sanctimommies on either side of any debate.
A sanctimommy is ANY mommy who proclaims her way as the best and only way and berates or attempts to humiliate or shame another mom who doesn’t agree.