Is Taking GMOs Off the Menu Pandering?

Is Taking GMOs Off the Menu Pandering?

Urban C Lehner
By  Urban C. Lehner , Editor Emeritus
Connect with Urban:
Logo courtesy of Chipotle

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.

(BAS)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R1] D[300x250] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R2] D[300x250] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
DIM[1x3] LBL[article-box] SEL[] IDX[] TMPL[standalone] T[]
P[R3] D[300x250] M[0x0] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Urban Lehner

Urban C Lehner
Connect with Urban: