An Urban's Rural View

Is Taking GMOs Off the Menu "Pandering?"

Urban C Lehner
By  Urban C Lehner , Editor Emeritus
Connect with Urban:
@urbanize

Amid the waves of controversy swirling over Chipotle's "no-GMOs" announcement, two surprises bobbed to the surface.

One was the vehemence of the criticism fired at the fast-food chain. "Chipotle's Anti-GMO Stance Is Some Anti-Science Pandering Bullxxxx" screamed a headline on the designer blog Gizmodo (http://tiny.cc/…). A Washington Post editorial (http://tiny.cc/…) echoed that theme in more restrained tones: "The anti-GMO lobby has scared people, and burritos can be sold by pandering to those fears."

The other surprise was the pass Chipotle received from some otherwise pro-GMO commentators. In a Bloomberg column (http://tiny.cc/…), Virginia Postrel defended genetic engineering, in passing, while saluting Chipotle for staying true to its food-quality-first strategy.

"If, like me, you consider genetically modified crops a beneficial example of scientific ingenuity, you'd probably be tempted to dismiss Chipotle's decision as nothing more than a sop to anti-technology superstition," Postrel wrote. Resisting that temptation, she embraced the decision as "a high-profile sign that Chipotle is paying close attention to the ingredients in its food" -- a sign that "fits with the strategy that has made Chipotle so successful."

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Lurking just below the surface of both the criticism and the embrace is an appreciation that consumer tastes in foods are changing. Increasingly consumers want "real" food. They're down on processing, queasy about lengthy ingredients lists, fearful of anything that isn't "natural," whatever that may mean. The question Chipotle's decision highlights is how businesses should respond when consumer fears aren't supported by science.

The Post's editorial writers think companies should "push back against the orchestrated fear of GMO's instead of validating it." Postrel clearly disagrees. Chipotle, she believes, is "a symbol of how Americans eat today" and as a matter of sound corporate strategy should do whatever is consistent with that symbolism.

Chipotle ducked the question by waffling on the science. Its announcement stopped short of "validating" consumer fears about the safety of GMOs. That issue needs more study, the company said; in the meantime consumers who don't want GMOs can feel comfortable eating here.

Contrast that waffle with the way Pepsi announced that it would stop using aspartame in its diet drinks. Pepsi made clear its belief that aspartame is safe; "decades of study" showed no health risk, the company declared. But consumers fear it so we're using a different artificial sweetener; the customer is always right, even when we think she's wrong.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins captured just how wrong Pepsi thinks the customer is (http://tiny.cc/…). "Not a week before its own aspartame announcement," Jenkins reported, "Pepsi's CEO Indra Nooyi, during an earnings call, went off on the public ignorance that such marketing both fosters and exploits, noting that millennials think 'real sugar' is a health food, and that 'organic, non-GMO products' are the epitome of nutrition 'even if they are high-salt, high-sugar, high-fat.'"

Who dares tell the customer she's wrong? That's hard for companies, but one farmer found a way to do it. In response to my April 1 post about the "New MacDonald" video (http://tiny.cc/…), farmer RJZ Peterson offered this comment:

"A few weeks ago I was sitting in the airport terminal with my family before we departed on our vacation. Sitting a few seats away from us was another young family like mine. We struck up a conversation with them which eventually brought up our occupations. When I told the Mother/Wife of the other family that I farm, she asked "Oh, do you grow organics?" my reply was simply "no". She scowled at me and started on a rant about how I am poisoning her family and the rest of the world with our poison GMOs and Pesticides. I first felt very angry, but then I thought, this is a great opportunity to maybe change one family's opinion about today's farmers. I didn't get mad at her I just explained a few things to her that she was deeply concerned about. I also explained to her how much she hurt me by claiming I am poisoning her family. By the time we started to board the plane, we were having a very nice conversation about how farm life is in today's modern world. Before we parted our ways onto the plane, she apologized to me. I felt great! If only I could talk to more people like her. If only the rest of us could all get a few chances like I had to express our concerns about the way America's farmers are being portrayed, we could possibly overcome this problem."

Amid all the controversy, this much is clear: In a face-to-face encounter, farmers can be powerful advocates.

Urban Lehner
urbanity@hotmail.com

(CZ)

© Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Previous Post (Who Was The Fool At This Poker Table?)
Next Post (On Added-Sugar Labeling) 
P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Curt Zingula
5/7/2015 | 6:37 AM CDT
Money is priority one for most folks Carlyle. 46 million people depend on government food aid and yet some people want us to proceed down a path of higher food costs - generally the ones who believe in wealth redistribution. Speaking of money, Chipolte's stock value declined 7% in the weeks leading up to their announcement of a "safe food" policy. However, I understand there is still some concern about earnings potential - the higher cost of non-GMO cooking oil will have to be offset by more customers duped by the safe food ad.
CARLYLE CURRIER
5/6/2015 | 10:52 PM CDT
Do we let elitist define agricultural production, and at the same time raise the cost of food to those many families who already struggle to pay their bills, or do we pursue education and use sound science? Most people still make cost an important determinant as to what food they buy at the grocery store. Organics have been promoted for many years, but are still primarily a niche market.
Unknown
5/6/2015 | 8:49 AM CDT
Yes, business IS pandering to the anti-everything consumer who was influenced by the anti-everything environmentalists. Making money is the objective afterall. Perhaps the consumer should look to sedentary lifestyles and overeating as being more dangerous to their health than GMO's.
Curt Zingula
5/6/2015 | 8:25 AM CDT
First post should have said, 7 million deaths in 15 years. Let me also add that GMO labeling referendums have failed and major newspapers have editorialized against the need to label. Surveys show a growing acceptance of GMOs. Gone in 5 years? Environmental activist Mark Lynas calls the 'natural' food craze a "cult" without merit. Cults are not usually long lived, especially without the backing of science and media. As my Mom often told me, lies will come back to haunt you - more attention to GMOs will reveal more lies.
Curt Zingula
5/6/2015 | 7:08 AM CDT
To the "pandering" issue, that's the aspect that consumers should fear! Organic is a 40 billion dollar industry that profits from fear. Heinz used HFCS fear to market ketchup. Non GMO water bottles - same story. For some strange reason, the anti-corporation faction doesn't associate their corporate concerns with businesses that profit from fear - the lowest of the low.
Curt Zingula
5/6/2015 | 6:52 AM CDT
I think Tom and Jay lost your "powerful advocates" message Urban! It went right over their anti corporate heads. I'm incredulous that people follow the path of devils - Golden Rice was developed by non corporate interests and contained a beta-carotene gene from another food staple, corn. It was engineered to prevent millions of South East Asia people, mostly children, from going blind and dying. Philanthropic interests were set to donate the seed to those people. Antis in skeleton suits propagandized Asia governments and destroyed research plots. These anti, good samaritan protests resulted in an estimated 15 million deaths that could have been prevented. And this is the group ANYONE would want to follow?!! Fortunately we have people with enough backbone and respect for the environment and fellow man, like RJZ Peterson, who do not succumb to mindless scare words.
Jay Mcginnis
5/6/2015 | 6:25 AM CDT
For once I agree with Tom and I have had heard many rants from my own friends about how I am poisoning the world and polluting mothers milk by growing GMO's. Seriously the only ones profiting from this are the corporations who now hold an enormous monopoly on peoples basic need of nutrition. Whatever the reality of this agriculture people feel there is something very wrong and they are right even if GMO/nonorganic is perfectly safe. To me the basic problem is that we as farmers have no alternative, not even able to keep our own seeds even when the patent expires! We need to encourage a non-GMO market not fight it. It is this monoculture that gives us $3.50 corn while not seeing a decrease on our input costs, you still think "scientific foods" are in the farmers interest let alone the consumers interest?
tom vogel
5/5/2015 | 10:20 PM CDT
Urban...very well written and provocative piece of agricultural journalism. I appreciate the science of GMOs, but I must say, I do not believe they represent the future of grains. Consumers always vote with their feet and their dollars, and when they get a chance, they are starting to vote against GMOs. I believe so many of these "scientific foods" are on the wane, as evidenced by what Chipotle (and today, Panera Bread) are doing with the so-called "artificial ingredients." Whether it's cyclamates, rBGH, aspartame, olestra, or GMOs, they are all food failures. With GMOs, it is just a matter of time before they die a rapid death. Especially with the millenial consumers, they want their food to be natural and non-synthetic. In five years, all of the above scientific foods will be gone, a victim of consumer sovereignty.