Campbell's Label- Brilliant Strategy

-
Many of the folks excited about food labels that indicate ingredients produced by a genetically engineered plants are taking a victory lap. 


We've seen the tweets about Campbell's decision, and it makes me genuinely curious.  Why are they so excited?  This is not a mandatory label.  This is a voluntary label, something I've always supported, and think is the best solution. 

"Partially produced with genetic engineering." I can live with that, which is why I don't think the activists will. 
Campbell's is rather brilliant.  They did this for one reason, and that's to do the experiment.  
  •  Now that Campbell's has satisfied the "right to know" will that be sufficient? 
  • Will there now be calls to ban or boycott Campbell's products?

 Essentially they must have drawn the short straw at the Grocery Manufacturers of America Secret Conspiracy Meeting and they get to take the first step.  If nothing changes, then the activists were correct, nobody will care, information flows, everyone is happy. 

 But could this be even something bigger?  I think so. 

 If HR1599 does not pass (and I don't care either way, it is lots of -negatives if it does) the Senate, then we'll be back to state-by-state labeling initiatives. 

 But if products are voluntarily labeled, then why do we need state laws? 

 It forces the hand of the activists.  Once companies are providing that information voluntarily, the consumer has the "right to know" they claim is at the heart of the issue, so there's no need for new regulations!

 So then the fight for labels is over.  Solved. 

 Or is it? 

 Not!

 This rather clever move will unveil the true motivations. Activists will continue to call for labels using state ballot initiatives. It will show, clearly, that this is not about a choice, but it is about banning a technology by causing hardship to producers, and driving them to source non-GE ingredients. 

 Will we see a call for avoiding Campbell's products?  By labeling their products they painted activists into the corner.  They can't complain about GE ingredients in Campbell's products, but at the same time are against them! 

 It is a curious problem.  How do you get people to boycott something that has been fully compliant in your demands? 

 We will be watching this situation closely. 

Popular posts from this blog

Film Review: The Need to Grow

-
Image
The recurring ads on Facebook pulled at me to watch The Need to Grow , a documentary film about food and farming.  As someone connected with these areas professionally and personally, I thought it would be worth a watch.  Here is a review. First the good things.  The film is nicely shot and well written.  The majority of the work builds on themes such as nutritious diets healthy soils, and efficient energy. Those are the central underlying values of the film, and ones that I wholly endorse.  However, where the film falls apart is in its approaches to achieve those end points.  Two of the "experts" recruited for the film are none other than Jeffrey Smith and Vandana Shiva, two people with little training in science or farming (and no, Vandana Shiva is not a physicist as the film claims).  The narrator is actress Rosario Dawson, who early in the film makes the proclamation, "Agriculture is the most destructive human activity on the planet." It is...
Read more

Food Babe Visits My University

-
Image
It was 6:30 pm in the lab and I was just thinking about the last things I'd need to get done before I could go home.  Typical night.  Usually I'm riding home about 7 pm, but an email popped up asking me if I was going to go watch the Food Babe.  A click on a link would take me to the note on a UF Dean for Students Good Food Revolution Events website.  Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy. There's something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a crackpot to unravel all of the information you have brought to students. She might have started from honest roots.  Her story says she was duped by an organic yogurt stand (join the club) into buying taro toppings that were filled with artificial, non-organic colors.  She realized that she could use social m...
Read more

Shame on Pediatrics. Rejecting Scientist's Comments

-
 A lot has been said about the journal Pediatrics December 2023 Clinical Report on "Using GMOs on Children". The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear.  When I wrote to editor-in-chief Dr. Lewis First, he indicated that I was invited to submit a response to the article that would be posted below the article on its website. I submitted my response, and it was not published on the site. My guess is that it illuminated the bankruptcies of the article in a manner that ran counter to the authors', editor's and journal's narrative.  So I'll publish my comment here.  Dear Pediatrics Readership,  The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example of how misinformation spreads- even through a credible conduit. Pediatrics is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter to the scientific con...
Read more