The idea that the difference in price between name brand and store brand OJ is largely due to name brand vs. store brand, can't enter the picture. The idea that people see the no-GMO label as signaling something else? Also not allowed in her thought processes. (And, on the Facebook post where this was discussed, I was far from the only person raising such issues.)
I've pointed out, in these pages, that artisinal cheeses, beer barley and other modern foodie foods contain GMOs. Related, I've pointed out that Rio Star / Ruby Star foodie grapefruit are made by radiation, that bananas contain radiation, that the USDA once allowed organic GMOs and more.
But I want good science, and good social science, on BOTH sides.
First, it is true, as I suspect, that many people identify "non-GMO" as meaning "organic," as shown here, and on that reason alone, are buying for non-fear reasons. (That's not to justify all reasons people buy organic, just explaning.)
Second, among mandatory or non-mandatory food labels and descriptors, "non-GMO" is NOT, not in the top 10 of buying influencers. So, whether no GMOs invoke fear, food quality, food safety, something else or all of the above, they're not that significant of a "mover." (She halfway accepted that, halfway didn't.)
Third? People generally won't pay a bunch more for non-GMOs. That ties to No. 2.
Fourth? I'm unaware of any reasonably scientific study (self-reporting by the two polarity sides here doesn't count) as to what percentage of consumers regularly look for the GMO labels. Given point the second, this has to be "look for" and not just "notice out of the corner of one's eye."
If I were to guesstimate (as I now am) I would say that the issue is 55 percent fear, 25 percent (per link above) perceiving "non-GMO" as "organic" (setting aside myths, realities, realities that cut both ways, Big Organic and the five or more sides involved with all of the above), 15 percent general "purity" or "less processed" issues and 5 percent miscellaneous other.
I finally left the conversation on Book of Face, hinting that I thought she was engaged in motivated reasoning, and didn't have survey evidence on the fear factor. (That's when I produced the links above.)
And, contra Chris Mooney, liberals and leftists as well as conservatives, intelligent as well as non-intelligent, and scientists as well as non-scientists, all engage in motivated reasoning.
I do, too. With the help of Idries Shah, I've worked to lessen that.
Recognizing there's "more than two sides" is to me a BIG issue on this whole GMO kerfuffle. That has started with GMOs as science vs. BigAg GMO product makers as biz. But, it goes beyond just thast.
And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.
And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.
Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.
Sidebar: I think GMO labeling is good for people who have religious dietary rules. Yeah, a pork gene in bread sounds weird, but if it ever happens, if not a GMO label, then it needs to be labeled as "contains pork."
Maybe a Science Food Babe would laugh at that. Or others even more into scientism. If so, that's part of the problem. It may be part of the problem here. To the degree the no-GMO label IS a fear motivator for some, laughing at said fears won't reduce them.
I've also, on the more than two sides, noted that some claims for the benefits of GMOs have been overstated, and that this generally seems related to the Big Ag side of the coin — but isn't guaranteed to fall just on that side of the three or more out there.
The GMO issue, per David Hume's observation that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions," has a lot of passion from people concerned, from companies trying to make money, and from scientists and science advocates trying to prove their chops.
And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.
And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.
Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.
Sidebar: I think GMO labeling is good for people who have religious dietary rules. Yeah, a pork gene in bread sounds weird, but if it ever happens, if not a GMO label, then it needs to be labeled as "contains pork."
Maybe a Science Food Babe would laugh at that. Or others even more into scientism. If so, that's part of the problem. It may be part of the problem here. To the degree the no-GMO label IS a fear motivator for some, laughing at said fears won't reduce them.
I've also, on the more than two sides, noted that some claims for the benefits of GMOs have been overstated, and that this generally seems related to the Big Ag side of the coin — but isn't guaranteed to fall just on that side of the three or more out there.
The GMO issue, per David Hume's observation that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions," has a lot of passion from people concerned, from companies trying to make money, and from scientists and science advocates trying to prove their chops.
No comments:
Post a Comment