In the past few decades, a movement has emerged that is drastically changing our society's relationship with food. This movement has many different titles as it encompasses a number of subcategories, most notably the anti-GMO campaign, the organic movement, and the more general "all-natural" foods movement. What these smaller movements have in common is an ideology that rejects the intervention of science and technology in our food supply and instead seeks to revert to a more traditional or "natural" approach to eating. Thus, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to the overarching trend in which these subcategories fall as The Anti-Science Foods Movement. (For a more detailed explanation, see the What is Anti-Science? page.)
As this movement has gained popularity, it has expanded into nearly every corner of our society. Today it is almost impossible to go to a restaurant or supermarket without seeing the phrase "all-natural" in some form. This growth is due to a number of factors, explored further in the Setting the Stage and The Shift pages of the site. Though the beginnings of this movement may have been grounded in reason (at least, in the eyes of its founders), today the rapid growth of the movement has less to do with scientific fact than it does with sociological trendiness. Many people simply "jump on the bandwagon," to use a fitting colloquialism, regardless of whether or not they know the facts behind their decisions. For example, many people have switched to shopping at specialty health foods markets such as Whole Foods or Trader Joe's where they often pay more for basic groceries. These people are willing to do this because they have heard that organic and all-natural is "better" or "cleaner," yet they usually do not know the scientific arguments behind these statements, let alone whether or not they have any merit.
Not surprisingly, the marketing departments of these and other businesses are taking notice of this trend and capitalizing on it. Many, if not all, supermarkets, restaurants, and food and drink companies have shifted their marketing strategies and now focus on highlighting the "natural" quality or simplicity of their products. Even McDonald's, arguably the most frequently cited example of an "unhealthy restaurant," has drastically changed its menu and ingredients list in order to cater to the demand for more "natural" foods. Together, the mass popularization or "band-wagoning" and the clever marketing of food companies have helped to create a frenzy of "all-natural" enthusiasm, propelling the Anti-Science Foods Movement forward. Unfortunately, scientific truth is often entirely lost in this whirlwind and replaced by ignorance and blind protest.
Below you will find a brief overview of the three main subcategories of the Anti-Science Foods Movement.
Alternatively, you can explore the other pages of this website to get more information on the history, evolution, and implications of the Movement.
What is a GMO?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, defines a GMO (genetically modified organism, also referred to as a genetically engineered food) as a crop that has been genetically altered using modern biotechnological methods in order to give it "more desirable traits" such as insect-resistance or durability. It is important to note that this process of creating plants with the best traits has been done for centuries through selective and cross breeding. Genetic modification is simply the more scientifically advanced and sophisticated version of this practice. And this process is not uncommon. In fact, most of the plants we eat in the U.S. are GMOs. According to the FDA, in 2012, 88% of corn and 93% of soybeans planted in the U.S. were genetically-engineered. GMOs have been exhaustively studied and, like any food, are constantly monitored by the FDA and held to the highest standards of quality and safety. Nearly all reputable studies have found that GMOs pose no dangers to human health. Those that have found otherwise have been discredited as scientifically inaccurate or statistically faulty. Anti-GMO groups and individuals, however, consistently cite these faulty or misleading studies as evidence that GMOs are dangerous and risky and that we simply "do not know for sure." Journalist William Saletan says about such groups, "They're counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust."
Despite the cloud of skepticism and misinformation, scientists and experts on the subject agree that GMOs are safe and, furthermore, that they can help provide the solution to our world's hunger problem. Genetically engineered plants are more durable and yield larger, healthier, and sometimes even more nutrient-rich fruit which could potentially help feed thousands more people than traditional crops, especially in poor rural areas.
And what about organic?
The official USDA organic label
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, founded the National Organic Program in 2002 in response to the growing demand for organic foods and other products. The NOP is responsible for developing "the rules and regulations for the production, handling, labeling, and enforcement of all USDA organic products." In order to be certified organic, a product must be "produced without excluded methods," the most notable of which being genetic engineering, and "without prohibited substances" such as certain chemicals. A definitive list of prohibited methods and substances can be found on the USDA website. Foods that meets these standards can be labelled with the official USDA organic seal, shown at the right.*
The Non-GMO Project label. Credit: www.nongmoproject.org
Another label that consumers may have seen is shown at the left. The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization aimed at "preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers and providing verified non-GMO choices." This label, however, is less official because it is not certified by any government agency. Plants such as fruits, vegetables, and grains; animal products such as dairy; and meat can all potentially be organic, as long as they meet the specific requirements. Typically, however, organic foods are only produced by small-scale farming operations, as it is too expensive and time-consuming for large operations. As a result, organic foods are usually significantly more expensive than their regular counterparts.
*Technically, foods must only contain 95% organic ingredients in order to be labelled with the organic seal. If a product is totally organic, it is allowed to be additionally labelled "100% organic."
Don't forget all-natural!
Unlike the preceding two categories, the term "all-natural" does not have a set definition. It is used as a general term for a variety of foods promoted by the Anti-Science Foods Movement. A report by the Food Marketing Institute states: "The term 'natural' applies broadly to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic preservatives; artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors and other artificial additives; growth hormones; antibiotics; hydrogenated oils; stabilizers; and emulsifiers. Most foods labeled natural are not subject to government controls beyond the regulations and health codes that apply to all foods." Thus there is no way to guarantee that a food is all-natural; any food label or packaging stating such is entirely superfluous.
Despite its apparent lack of significance, the term "all-natural" has become a buzzword for both consumers and producers. In the case of food packaging, however, the use of this and other related terms is more a marketing ploy than a consumer guarantee. It is an attempt to cater to and capitalize on the demand for the foods that the Anti-Science Foods Movement believes to be healthier: those that are simple and "natural." The actual substance or nutritional value of the product in question is often irrelevant.