ASYMMETRY OF MISINFORMATION: From Krugman To GMOs

[HuckleB]

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/09/10/asymmetry-of-misinformation/

A recent Paul Krugman post describes how critics of Obamacare stay misinformed, not always through incorrect information, but rather what is emphasized in the reporting that they see and what is left out.

But there’s something I’ve noticed from the combination of reactions to what I write and researching past coverage of Obamacare. It goes like this: a lot of the untrue beliefs people have about Obamacare come not so much from outright false reporting as from selective reporting. Every suggestion of bad news gets highlighted — especially, of course, but not only by Fox, the WSJ, etc.. But when it turns out that the news wasn’t really that bad, these sources just move on. There are claims that millions of people are losing coverage — headlines! When it turns out not to be true — crickets! Some experts claim that premiums will rise by double digits — big news! Actual premium numbers come in and they’re surprisingly low — not mentioned. The result is that most news consumers — who form impressions rather than trying to work out details — have the sense that it’s been all bad news.
It seemed an apt and parallel description to the asymmetry of information in the two discrete ecosystems of information around the GMO issue.

While Anti-Anti-GMO folks tend to be aware of the information that the other side is looking at, that is rarely the case going in the other direction. The science community spends a great deal of time debunking the poorly conducted studies that are trumpeted and over-interpreted in Sustainablepulse, GreenMedInfo, the Organic Consumer’s Association, Food Democracy and the various GMO Free websites. So we are aware of what is being circulated in the anti-GMO community. The folks who read those sites are often not even aware that an alternative ecosystem of information exists. They frequently don’t realize that the studies they are circulating have been roundly critiqued, if not completely discredited. They continue to circulate things like the 2009 editorial by Scientific American on the ability of independent researchers to access biotech seeds without realizing that the issue has been resolved. They often continue to believe things like the urban myth that biotech crops employ the terminator technology. Readers of RT.com often believe that China is giving up on biotech crops, because they have rejected select shipments with crops they have yet to approve or that they have abandoned some research trials. This is seen as evidence of some safety issue with biotech crops, rather than leverage in trade policy and the fact that research trials are ended all the time when they don’t bear the results that had been hoped for. People who get all their news from anti-GMO sources rarely understand that there is a lot of research on biotech safety, much of it by independent sources.

..."


Alas, the piece is all too short, but it is well supported at the same site.

[ZombieHorde]

1. K&R&NT

[HuckleB]

2. Thank you!

[Archae]

3. Donchu know?

The marching orders from Big Organic have been sent out.

Never mind science, facts, and studies.

The anti-GMO/anti-vaxx/ woo spreaders will always be with us.

[HuckleB]

4. Alas, you are correct. All too correct. -eom-

[G_j]

5. Unrec nt

[closeupready]

6. Why do you people oppose democracy? Why do you promote ignorance?

Consumers should have information available to them, in order to make their own decisions as to what they are putting into their bodies.

[HuckleB]

12. "You people."

If big organic pushed for all types of seed development to be labeled, you might have a point. However, it only wants to label one technology, not all technologies, and it just happens to be the technology it has utilized as a bogeyman in order to market its own products at ever higher prices.

The first step is to change our labeling laws.”GMO labels. The purpose is...?
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/gmo-labels-the-purpose-is

It's time to realize that your looking at the wrong bogeyman. Oh, and you might want to recognize that science is not done by vote. Science should, however, inform one's vote.

[pnwmom]

7. Given the lack of transparency on the part of GMO producers,

it's pretty ridiculous for them to be concerned about "asymmetry of information."

Once they start labeling their products, allowing for epidemiological research, they will deserve to be taken more seriously.

[G_j]

8. reminds of the secrecy around the chemicals used in fracking...

why should we care?

[HuckleB]

10. Nice propaganda you're offering up.

Considering the lack of transparency of the anti-GMO fear mongerers, aka organic companies looking to increase profits by lying to customers about dangers that are not real, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Oh, i know you'll keep saying something or another, but you have no basis in reality for what you're offering. The decision to focus on a single technology, while pretending the other technologies don't exist, or are somehow magically more safe is clear, and it shows the outright deceit of the anti-GMO movement.


The first step is to change our labeling laws.”GMO labels. The purpose is...?
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/gmo-labels-the-purpose-is

[pnwmom]

13. The purpose of labeling is to allow for post-market safety research

and to allow consumers to make their own choices.

With regard to the former, it is not possible to survey consumers as to GMO use if GMO products are not labeled.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=183

SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS

Report from:

Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health
Board on Life Sciences
Food and Nutrition Board
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
 Washington, D.C.

Additional Tools for Postcommercialization: Identification and Assessment of Unintended Effects
Findings

Postcommercialization or postmarket evaluation tools for verifying and validating premarket assessments of novel substances in food or detectable changes in diet composition, including tracking and epidemiological studies, are important components of the overall assessment of food safety. . . .

Postmarket surveillance is a commonly accepted procedure, for example, with new pharmaceuticals and has been beneficial in the identification of harmful and unexpected side effects. As a result, pharmacologists accept postmarket surveillance as a part of the process to identify unexpected adverse outcomes from their products. This example is especially pertinent to GE foods because of the unique ability of this process to introduce gene sequences to generate novel products into organisms intended for use as food and especially in situations where the novel products are introduced at levels that have the potential to alter dietary intake patterns (e.g., elevated levels of key nutrients).

Given the possibility that food with unintended changes may enter the marketplace despite premarket safety mechanisms, postmarket surveillance of exposures and effects is needed to validate premarket evaluations. . . . Thus the process of identifying unintended compositional changes in food is best served by combining premarket testing with postmarket surveillance, when compositional changes indicate that it is warranted, in a feedback loop that follows a new GM food or food product long-term, from development through utilization

RECOMMENDATION 5

When warranted by changes such as altered levels of naturally occurring components above those found in the product’s unmodified counterpart, population-specific vulnerabilities, or unexplained clusters of adverse health effects, the committee recommends improving the tracking of potential health consequences from commercially available foods that are genetically modified, including those that are genetically engineered, by actions such as the following:

Improve the ability to identify populations that are susceptible to food allergens and develop databases relevant to tracking the prevalence of food allergies and intolerances in the general population, and in susceptible population subgroups.

Improve and include other postmarket resources for identifying and tracking unpredicted and unintended health effects from GM foods:

Improve the sensitivity of surveys and other analytical methodologies currently used to detect consumer trends in the purchase and use of GM foods after release into the marketplace,

[HuckleB]

14. You keep repeating that ridiculous mantra.

Oddly, you continue to fail to realize that you're talking about one technology among many, and that each seed is very individualized. You cannot utilize any such technology label to do such research, all of which can be done, anyway.

Thus, you are pushing baseless fear upon people for no good reason. I have no respect for that position.

[pnwmom]

15. The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council support my position,

but you can't even be bothered to read their report.

You're too much in thrall to Monsanto, et al.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Yawn...

Obsess much?

[HuckleB]

11. Thanks for the kick.

PS:


The first step is to change our labeling laws.”GMO labels. The purpose is...?
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/gmo-labels-the-purpose-is

[Marr]

16. I don't really understand what GMO labels would even entail.

Do they have to go on bananas? I mean, the breed you buy in US grocery stores isn't found in the wild-- it's a GMO, bred to maximize transportability. Your dog is a GMO.