General Mills, Cheerios, Food Labeling, and Science-Based Policy Making

General Mills announces Cheerios will no longer contain genetically modified ingredients. So . . . will they be individually hand-carved from rocks? A look at the science and values issues in the General Mills food labelling policy.
General Mills announces Cheerios will no longer contain genetically modified ingredients. So . . . will they be individually hand-carved from rocks, which contain no DNA? Let’s have a look at the science and values issues in the General Mills food labelling policy.

General Mills (in a blog post written by Tom Forsythe) announces that Cheerios, a flagship cereal for the company, will no longer be made with genetically modified ingredients [1].

What’s wrong with this announcement?

General Mills is adding labels to its food products, like Cheerios, that read “not made with genetically modified ingredients.” However, this is impossible – it’s scientifically inaccurate, and thus does a disservice to the natural world of which we are a part. So . . . are they making Cheerios from rocks now? No, I am not being snarky – I am merely attempting to identify something from which Cheerios can be crafted but that itself doesn’t contain DNA. That’s because all biological organisms are genetically modified . . . this is how natural selection, or “descent with modification,” works to create biological organisms adapted to their environment. Without it, life as we know it is not possible.

What General Mills actually means to say is that they will no longer use ingredients whose genes have been precision modified (e.g. “Biotechnology”) to make the organisms even better at resisting pests, or tolerating their environment, or increasing their yield. Precision genetic modifications are better tested and understood than those made in the wild, so this makes no scientific sense.

What’s right with this announcement?

When it comes to food policy and the science that informs it, one must separate the science issues (biotech foods are generally well-studied and well-controlled, with no known harmful side-effects for human consumption) from the values issues (people are afraid of eating new things, people make choices about what they eat based on philosophy, or politics, or religion, etc.). In fact, the General Mills blog posts stresses rightly that, “… it’s not about safety. Biotech seeds, also known as genetically modified seeds, have been approved by global food safety agencies and widely used by farmers in global food crops for almost 20 years.” They rightly distinguish the values and science issues in this policy.

Comments on the policy

So if they have the science right, what’s up with the change? The company claims they did this because it was easy – the ingredients in question were a small part of the manufacturing process and it was a minimal change for their manufacturing process – and “…because we think consumers may embrace it.” . Since the call for removal of Biotech ingredients from foods has been coming from a loud group of people who confuse science and values in the making of food policy, I have to speculate that General Mills did this not only because it cost them little or nothing to do, but because it would placate that population. It’s certainly a policy move, but not a science-based policy move.

General Mills is free to use whatever they want in their food products, so long as it is not in violation of food safety regulatory mechanisms. However, they should not mistake genetic modification for Biotech foods; the latter is a subset of the former. To claim on a label that you’re not going to make Cheerios from genetically modified food suggests each one will be hand-carved from rocks; rocks possess no DNA and cannot be genetically modified. As a scientist, I want scientific accuracy in discussions of food policy, and if you are going to label foods then do it accurately and do not confuse the core scientific issues. The blog post itself did a decent job of separating the science issue from the other issues; but the food label itself uses this misleading idea that one can EVER be free of genetically modified food. That is impossible.


NOTE: I teach a university course in the scientific method, critical and creative thinking. I stress with my students the importance of defining science, clearly framing the scientific portions of issues, and separating those parts from the values portions of an issue. Food labelling is a constant source of material for critical assessment in the framework of the scientific method.

SciFi: Bad reporting on the “acupuncture and breast cancer patients” study

Having needles shoved in your skin can seem like a major medical intervention, but science says it's a sham. Is a new study about lung cancer pain and acupuncture going to change that picture? In short . . . no. It's terrible science. Photo from Ref. 4.
Acupuncture is shown again to be no better than placebo. An AltMed news site spins it to say any acupuncture, even badly done, will help breast cancer patients. Is this good science?

I keep a special feed on Google News called “Nonsenseville” [1]. It’s an rss stream that results from a search for keywords that typically appear in pseudoscience articles. Normally, I scan the headlines to get a sense of how credulous is the science reporting on a topic. Today, I saw this headline from the Canadian Sun news company in my feed: “Sun News: Acupuncture, even done wrong, can help women taking breast cancer drugs: Study [finds]” [2] (the last word appears to have fallen off their site . . . I assume it was “finds”). This is nonsense of the highest order, and is a dangerous message to women desperate for relief from the awful side-effects of breast cancer treatment. The message is: even an extremely incompetent and dangerous quack can help you. This is grade-A nonsense of the highest order, and deserves to be critically assessed.

Continue reading “SciFi: Bad reporting on the “acupuncture and breast cancer patients” study”

They are dangerous

“[The creationists and the Discovery Institute]  are not interested in science, and they are not interested in education. They are interested in political power. They are dangerous.” (Vincent Cassone, chair of the University of Kentucky Biology Department). [1]

In an interesting interview with Vincent Cassone, chair of the University of Kentuck Biology Department, we learn how it is he was appointed to the final expert review panel for the Pearson public school biology textbook. Cassone makes this call at the end of the interview for all scientists to work for the cause of good science in the public science classroom. All good scientists must work to counter the lies, and the legal and political machinations of the creationists. It is a powerful call.


A good example of a bad argument

Recently, a two new studies of multivitamins and their efficacy for purposes other than vitamin deficiency were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine [1][2]. One study looks at using multivitamins to improve outcomes after myocardial infarction, and finds no evidence of a benefit. The second study looks at measurable outcomes of cognitive function in men who take a multivitamin, and finds no positive benefit to supplementation. These are just two  studies in a growing body of evidence (c.f. [3][4]) that shows that the primary and overwhelming thing that vitamin supplementation is good for is curing a vitamin deficiency. In general, there are many more popular claims about the wonders of vitamin supplementation than there are actual, high-quality scientific studies of those claims. The latest pair of articles were brought to my attention by a friend on Twitter, and what resulted from their post was a classic example of a bad argument.

Continue reading “A good example of a bad argument”