Last week, I wrote a post (later reprinted on the Huffington Post) called “Don’t Call Me a “Sanctimommy:” The Latest Salvo in the Mommy Food Wars,” which was my rebuttal to a piece in Salon, “Stop telling me I’m poisoning my kids”: Food crusaders, sancti-mommies and the rise of entitled eaters.”
The crux of the Salon piece, written by self-proclaimed “science advocate” Jenny Splitter, is that because we live in “one of the safest food systems in the world,” a mother is an “entitled,” “arrogant” “sanctimommy” if she’s at all concerned about feeding her children GMOs, conventionally grown foods or sugar.
As I outlined in my rebuttal, I actually agreed with some of Splitter’s points – particularly that it’s not OK for a mom to tell another mom that she’s “poisoning” her kids by feeding them conventionally-grown food (or anything else, short of actual poison.) But just because our food supply is “safe” in many ways, I believe there are many legitimate reasons why a mom might care about feeding her kids sugar, organics or GMOs; derisively labelling such women “sanctimommies” strikes me as an ugly, patronizing tactic that certainly doesn’t serve Splitter’s cause as a pro-GMO activist.
But precisely because Splitter’s ire appears to be primarily directed at anti-GMO moms, my rebuttal required me to wade into an area that I’ve quite deliberately avoided on The Lunch Tray in the past, i.e., the debate over GMO foods. And, as I quickly learned, that debate is a fierce and emotional one for many people. Within hours of sharing my post, one of Splitter’s supporters accused me on Twitter of having personally maligned her. Soon after, heated comments from both pro- and anti-GMO factions started pouring in on The Lunch Tray.
Rather than answer each of those comments individually, I thought it might be easier to sum up my thoughts on GMO in my first — and likely last — statement on the subject on this blog:
I haven’t taken a public stance on GMO foods as part of my kid-and-food advocacy simply because I don’t believe consensus has been reached on a lot of open questions, ranging from the safety of ingesting GMO foods (though I’m inclined to believe they are safe) to the broader ripple effects of GMO on agriculture and the environment. (As I did in my rebuttal, let me again refer readers to this excellent piece by Maywa Montenegro, “The Complex Nature of GMOs Calls for a New Conversation,” which encourages us to view the GMO question through a wider lens than just food safety.)
But over the last few days, I’ve learned to my chagrin that just saying “the debate isn’t settled” on any aspect of the GMO question is highly inflammatory to pro-GMO supporters — and will inevitably lead to accusations that you’re an “anti-science” wing-nut, someone who’s irrationally afraid of “chemicals” (and yes, I actually do know that water is a chemical, but thanks to the commenters who shared this free science lesson with me) — or that you’re a dreaded “sanctimommy.” Well, so be it; I’m certainly not alone in this assessment and after almost six years of blogging, I’ve developed a pretty thick skin.
More pragmatically, though, one of my core interests as a writer and advocate is school food reform, and I personally believe GMO has no place in that conversation at this juncture. Put more bluntly, we’re currently fighting in Congress just to preserve a whole-grain-rich standard and to keep a mere half-cup of fruits or vegetables on kids’ lunch trays; whether those healthful foods are produced organically, conventionally or via GMO technology matters far less to me as a school food advocate than that they’re actually served to the 31 million kids who rely on school meals for needed nutrition.
But then there’s the question of GMO labeling. In keeping with my general belief that consumers have a right to food transparency, I do support GMO labeling – along with 93% of the American public. And it’s worth noting that GMO food is already labeled in 64 countries around the world – even including China – and, despite the dire warnings of the pro-GMO camp, the economies of those countries have not ground to a halt as a result.
Labeling has another role, too. As Marion Nestle wisely put it on her blog, Food Politics, last year, there are
two apparently irreconcilable views of GMO foods:
- The “science-based” position: If GMOs are safe (which they demonstrably are), there can be no rational reason to oppose them.
- The “societal value-based” position: Even if GMOs are safe (and this is debatable), there are still plenty of other reasons to oppose them.
. . . . Those who hold the “science-based” position would do well to take societal values more seriously.
Seed patents, monoculture, weed resistance, and other such concerns trouble people who care about food systems that promote health, protect the environment, and provide social justice.
Labeling, right from the start, would have acknowledged the importance of such values. Until GMO foods are labeled as such, the same arguments are likely to go on endlessly, with no reconciliation in sight.
I’m going to link to this post in the comments section on my original Splitter rebuttal and will not be engaging on further debate about GMO on this blog. If that topic is deeply important to you, there are many other forums on the Internet in which to air your views.
My only regret in even mentioning GMO in my rebuttal to Splitter’s piece is that I fear it obscured my larger point:
There are few more personal matters than how we feed our own children, and we’d all be better served by adopting a live-and-let-live attitude instead of judging other moms. And when we do need to settle food issues in the political sphere, derisive terms like “sanctimommy” do nothing but poison the debate.
Do you love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Follow TLT on Facebook and Twitter! You can also subscribe to Lunch Tray posts, and be sure to download my FREE 40-page guide, “How to Get Junk Food Out of Your Child’s Classroom.”
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Bettina Elias Siegel
Stephan Neidenbach says
“Seed patents, monoculture, weed resistance, and other such concerns trouble people who care about food systems that promote health, protect the environment, and provide social justice.”
All of those concerns apply equally to conventional crops, and not all GMOs have those concerns. That is our point. That is why “GMO” labels are meaningless and serve to do nothing but confuse consumers.
Greg Haroutunian says
The science really is settled here and there are no “social concerns” which apply to the GMO question. Only if you happen to fail to be aware of the way the world actually works could you think there are.
“Seed patents”
Apply to non-GMO foods and do not apply to all GMOs and regardless, this is a good thing. This is how progress happens. There is no reason for anyone to invest billions of dollars in R&D if someone else could come along and just copy their work for a pittance. This is why patents or their equivalent exist in any creative (meant literally here) field.
“monoculture”
Not remotely an issue relating to GMOs, at all. Your issue is with farming practices which pre-date modern technology “GMOS” by centuries and there is absolutely no reason for “GMOs” to have to be used in a “monoculture” way (if that were a bad thing). So this argument is, like the patent one, entirely irrelevant to the question of “GMOs” as it applies far beyond GMOs and it also is not an inherent quality of them.
“weed resistance”
This seems more like a scientific concern than a social concern. More importantly, this has nothing to do with “GMOs” because: 1. Only a subtype of GMOs are modified for herbicide tolerance. 2. Herbicide tolerance is something that seed companies can bring about without transgenics but through “non-GMO” processes like artificial selection, hybridization and mutagenesis.
“and other such concerns trouble people who care about food systems that promote health, protect the environment, and provide social justice.”
Yea, “GMOs” are the answers to all of those, being able to make healthier food (see the innate potato), protect the environment (reduce inputs and reduce agriculture footprint, and a recent type of “GMO” rice reduces methane emissions by 99%) and provide social justice (The introduction of “GMO” crops has reduced the cost of food while simultaneously increasing farmer profits. That’s about as social justice-y as you can get, making things more affordable for poor people and reducing the number of poor people simultaneously).
So no, it isn’t that we science literate people are “emotional” over the GMO issue, its that even your “moderate” criticisms are ones grounded in ignorance and illogic.
mommm!!! says
I wouldn’t call GMOs “social justicy”. Farmers can’t save seed and instead have to buy them every year. The herbicides many of these GMOs are resistant to are producing super weeds. Farmers have to increasingly spray more and more herbicides, which are then entering water supplies in alarmingly increasing amounts. Also, not cheap. Lets not even get into the whole cross polination issues and the sheer sums of money battling that. And we should not forget the GMOs that produce insecticide that contributes to bee colony collapse, which endangers our entire food system nationally. None of these things are socially responsible, economically responsible, and least of all “healthy”. I can’t imagine that someone would promote an agricultural system that actually uses MORE chemicals to grow as “healthy” for anyone. When eating food becomes akin to lighting a cigarette its time to rethink chemical agriculture.
Further, I resent the idea that anyone that opposes GMOs must be scientifically ignorant. As someone with ag degrees, I can tell you that there are hoards of folks in the scientific community that oppose them as well across many sciences.
Stephan Neidenbach says
I do however applaud you for putting the nutritious meal thing first. Biotech is a distraction. Organic Oreos are still Oreos.
bw1 says
“In keeping with my general belief that consumers have a right to food transparency, I do support GMO labeling”
And there’s the rub. Consumers have one right – the freedom to purchase what they seek in an honest, voluntary transaction without being deceived. Everything else is something to be negotiated with the other party to the deal. Short of barring overt misrepresentation, anything else interferes with someone else’s right to the transaction of their choice. Silence on whether a product contains GMO’s is not misrepresentation, any more than your past silence on the issue of GMO’s is not misrepresentation of your views.
If a producer doesn’t provide the information you desire, don’t buy their product. Period. There is no shortage of products on the market that very clearly specify they are produced without antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, GMO’s, or various combinations thereof. That other producers choose to remain silent on these factors, to the complete satisfaction of other consumers who are willing to be agnostic for lower prices, in no way interferes with your right to purchase the aforementioned labeled foods. Forcing producers from whom you would NEVER buy to alter their labeling to call out their use of GMO’s does nothing to enhance your ability to buy what you want. It only serves to interfere with the free commerce those who don’t share your values and beliefs.
You care about whether your food is organic, fair trade, or GMO free. Observant Jews and Muslims care about how their meat is raised, slaughtered, and processed. The difference is that those two groups manage to meet their needs without coercing anyone else to participate. They don’t go running to their legislators demanding that non-Kosher and non-Halal foods be explicitly be labeled as such. Government has NO role in their ability to buy foods that meet their criteria, except for baseline enforcement of the same trademark and copyright laws that everyone else enjoys. A private organization certifying foods as GMO-free would enjoy the same trademark protection for their certification symbols.
Once again, it comes down to your unwillingness to limit the impact of your beliefs to those who share them.
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, “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)