Fear-Based Food Marketing; Not Only for the Rich & Famous

Recently at a food blogging conference, I conversed with several foodie’s who repeatedly asked me production questions about my farm, how we raise our livestock and what we feed them. Then proceeded to question my family's production decisions, “Are you really telling me the truth?”.

“But Whole Foods only has meat that is grass-fed and organic – so that is what you should be raising, right?” said a food blogger.

We proceeded to have a conversation about the “fear-based marketing” that retailers like Whole Foods has, merely to increase prices. It’s their business model. Making money based on fear. I proceeded to tell her that the beef my family raises could likely end up in Whole Foods or Safeway or a local grocery store and each store/chain will label it how they want – even though I raised it all the same here on my ranch.

This idea of fear-based marketing is not new to me, or probably to you. Retailers, restaurants and certain “self-proclaimed” know-it-alls…ahem, Food Babe, have been labeling and marketing their products in a way to make a certain production practices seem more humane or better for your health, while also jacking up the price.

But what I found interesting was that it is not just the upper (or even middle) class who are falling for these marketing ploys anymore. The Illinois Institute of Technology’s Center for Nutrition Research recently performed a research study, surveying 510 low-income shoppers about what types of information influences their shopping decisions regarding fruits and vegetables. The results concluded that in general, participants preferred organic fruits and vegetables; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them. Informational statements about organic and conventional fruits and vegetables did not increase participants' likelihood to purchase more.

Here’s the kicker -- in contrast, messages naming specific fruits and vegetables with pesticides shifted participants toward “less likely” to purchase any type of fruits and vegetables regardless whether organically or conventionally grown. The results provide insight about how low-income people view fruits and vegetables and how communications may influence their future purchase intentions.

Another study that focused on low-income consumers was performed at John Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future in January of 2015. The respondents in this study included organic--or common characteristics of organic food--in their definition of healthy food, even though many of them did not have access to organic foods due to poor availability and affordability.

Now, even though this is just fruits and vegetables, I’m pretty confident that a follow-up survey about meats, grains and GMOs would produce similar results. We can’t just claim that the top 10% of consumers – namely Whole Foods customers – are the only ones drinking the Kool-Aid and wanting certain production practices based on fear of that practice because it’s deemed ‘healthier’ for them and they can afford it. It’s all up and down the socio-economic pipeline.

This should be a wake-up call for those of us raising food. We can’t just keep doing what we’re doing. We need to talk about it. And share it. Then share it again. Different people will see what we are doing, why we are raising food that way and start a revolution that should happen when people are making choices about something that is so personal and emotional to them.

To wrap-up my time at the food blog conference, I had several, meaningful conversations with the bloggers about how food is really raised. Most of them had never been on farms and had just relied on their friends, family or ‘Whole Foods’ to tell them how food was - and should - be raised. Just a simple conversation changed their perspective – and likely their friends, family and most importantly, their blog following – about modern food production.

What are you doing today to defend your right to raise food the way you do?

How to talk about Sustainability

In our culture’s evolving society, more communication avenues are emerging, allowing food-eaters to share about their food and desiring to know how it was raised. The ‘sustainability movement’ amongst consumers has caused a myriad of definitions of the term that farmers and ranchers have been ‘sustaining’ since the beginning of time.

The U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) has been conducting research on consumers’ perceptions of agriculture since 2011 in an effort to earn consumer trust in American food and agriculture. Along with conducting annual research, they aim to ensure the voices of farmers and ranchers are presented in influential conversations about food and agriculture where they can make a positive impact.

Sustainability and Consumer Perceptions

Most recently, USFRA’s research focused specifically about sustainability and consumer perceptions; conducting online interviews, surveying a total of 1,000 consumers. This perception survey provided benchmark results and explored opinions on farming and ranching based on two key types of consumers: general consumers and consumer food connectors. General consumers included: millennials; parents; non-parents; or general consumer population. Consumer food connectors included: educated consumers with a strong interest in politics and government policy; highly-engaged food influencer that others turn to for information about their food; make all household decisions and purchases related to food; or engaged in food advocacy activities.

When it comes to specifically talking about sustainability, USFRA found that terms like, “water, soil, air and habitat” resonate the most with both general consumers and consumer food connectors.

The 2016 Food and Health Survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC), found that consumers consider sustainability more in their decisions to buy food and beverages than just a year ago, and seven in ten consumers think it is important that the food products are produced in a sustainable way. Both USFRA and IFIC’s surveys showed that agriculture’s impact on humans is always top of mind for consumers. They want to improve their health, as well as their families, through access to safe, nutritious food and want to have a positive impact on their local community.

But are consumers equating “producing nutritious, safe and high-quality food” to “sustainability”? Obvious enough, sustainability can mean different things to different people. USFRA found that consumers define sustainability with terms such as: environmentally responsible, integrity, ethical, accountable for actions, trustworthy, supporting local communities and social responsibility.

Even more interesting, half of the consumers polled with USFRA could not state what sustainability meant to them, although they say it is important. It needs to be farmers and ranchers responsibility to define sustainability for them.

Defining What We Do As Sustainable

Farmers and ranchers keep future generations top of mind. We love talking about being a third or fourth-generation farmer while bringing in the fifth generation. Doing more with less is part of being good stewards of the land. We talk about our sustainable practices, but we don’t always convey or define what we are doing is actually sustainability. Consumers, food connectors and media alike are hijacking this concept that food producers have been doing for hundreds of years and making it their own. Much of the language the agriculture industry uses today gives consumers unnecessary anxiety, simply because they don’t understand what it means. We have an opportunity to turn terms and phrases that are perceived as negative, into positives.

For example, when we talk about pesticides, explain that they prevent bugs and other pests from eating crops – that’s sustainable. By taking time to explain the term from our perspective, we will be squelching the negative perception in the food-eaters’ eyes.

Transparency Leads to Sustainability

Based on consumer perceptions, transparency is king when it comes to making food-purchasing decisions. Food connectors find it extremely important to know about where the food was grown or raised where price was the number one importance for general consumers.

To help tell this agriculture-sustainability story, USFRA recommends that farmers and ranchers:

• Keep in mind that sustainability is an inherent part of your business. Keep the future generations top of mind and communicate that doing more with less is part of being good stewards of the land. Sustainability means smart business practices.
• Make sustainability relatable. Communicate that you are making it better for the future versus defining success of the past. Connect your audience to who you are and not just what you do, and associate with shared values.
• Use language that resonates. Water, soil, air and habitat; improving the environment around my farm; limiting impact; improving human health; access to safe and nutritious food; efficient use of land; more with less; using new technologies – equipment and software; making business more profitable through sustainability; sustainable food is affordable food.

More than ever, now is the time to be transparent about what you do. People don’t need a checklist on each “hot issue.” But they do want relevant and true pieces of information about where their food comes from and where it was raised. Take advantage of opportunities to deliver factual information about how food was grown and raised across the supply chain, and share information whether it’s superior or not. Coffee shop conversations, church lunches, social media interactions – all of these venues will make an impact if you start telling your story and most importantly, relating it to sustainability.

USMEF, USFRA, and USGC Discussions at Commodity Classic

As the current Nebraska Corn Board intern, I was able to attend Commodity Classic 2016 in New Orleans. While there, I spent some time at the trade show, engaging in conversations with several different agribusinesses. I stopped by the following three booths: United States Meat Export Federation (USMEF), United States Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), and the United States Grains Council (USGC). I had really great, informative conversations with each of these three agricultural groups.

At the USMEF booth, I learned that their mission is, "to increase the value and profitability of the U.S. beef, pork and lamb industries by enhancing demand for their products in export markets through a dynamic partnership of all stakeholders." This past year they were able to set a new record for global pork exports, which increased by about 5 percent from last year. This was largely driven by demand in China, Mexico and South Korea. After speaking with a representative of USMEF, I was informed that one of their main focuses this year has been producer education, which will continue being a priority into the upcoming years. Being present at Commodity Classic helped USMEF reach these producers from all over the nation.

I also spoke with employees of USFRA. Their main goal is to communicate all aspects of agriculture with consumers who might have questions about how today's food is grown and raised. The vision of USFRA is to build trust and confidence in today's agricultural practices. Specifically, they have been working to build the bridge between farmers and consumers. This year, they have focused on farmers thanking consumers and have trained farmers to be comfortable talking to consumers about any concerns or questions they may have.

Finally, I spoke with representatives of USGC. Their goal at Commodity Classic was to entertain all attendees, but doing so in a way that would show the importance of agricultural trade. Their mission is to develop markets, enable trade, and improve lives. I learned that one of their main priorities is to help people understand the global picture of crops, including prices and profitability. Being present at Commodity Classic allowed USGC to create new partnerships by building valued, long-lasting relationships with farmers, agricultural leaders, policymakers and administrators.

Facing the Facts about GMO

As farmers, we see the value and usefulness of biotechnology. Biotech is the farmer term for what food eaters know as GMOs.

The misfortune around biotechnology/genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is that food eaters are unsure of what GMOs really are and farmers don’t always know how to talk about it. The seed companies are great at explaining the science, but food eaters really don’t want to hear it from them.

Growing more with less

For farmers, biotechnology is a useful tool in their toolbox of resources for growing more food sustainably. To them, that means using fewer pesticides and fertilizer, and fewer times across the field meaning less fuel. It also lets them grow crops that may be resistant to pesky pests that have damaged their crops in the past.

“As a farmer, I see biotechnology as huge investment into growing enough food for a growing world with fewer resources,” says Jay Reiners, a farmer near Juniata, Neb., who serves on the NCGA Trade Policy & Biotech Action Team and is a director on the NeCGA Board. “From drought resistance to disease resistance to insect resistance, we can grow more corn, soybeans or other food sources in a more sustainable way.”

As farmers, they see the usefulness of GMOs, but how can it be better explained to food eaters?

Jay Reiners, photo from Omaha.com

“I think the reason biotech is misunderstood is because as an industry we haven't explained what biotech is good enough from the beginning,” says Reiners. “We assumed that the public wouldn't have a problem with it because the government said it was safe. Now we are on the defense against false information.”

This challenge hasn’t resolved overnight, but farmers and farmer-driven movements are aiming to do a better job at directly conversing with food eaters through programs that get them in front of food eaters – not an easy task when you think about it. Some farmers have direct access to their customers at farmers markets. But commodity farmers who don’t directly market their grain through farmer’s market, don’t have the opportunity to have face-to-face conversations with their customers.

So programs like CommonGround, U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) and more have been started from the ground up (meaning started by farmers) to help give farmers and ranchers alike an opportunity to be in front of the public.

Women to women

CommonGround is a movement of farm and ranch women who volunteer their time to share about where food comes from and how it is raised. It was started in 2009 (Nebraska was one of the pilot states!) and has now grown to 19 states and growing + over 180 volunteers! These women involved volunteer their time and the CommonGround program (funded by farmer checkoffs) helps setup opportunities for them to be in front of food eaters – like dietitian conferences, grocery-store conversations, media opportunities, food meetings, moms groups, etc.

They are moving the needle as real, credible women who are relatable to the women food purchasers, which by the way, women are the majority of people who buy food for and make health-wise decisions for their families. So it makes sense to have women farmers and ranchers, who also buy food for their families, sharing what it is that they do raising food and why they do it.

“With programs like CommonGround, we are able to help change public opinion one at a time in a personal way from a first-hand account where their food comes from,” says Reiners.

Farmers and ranchers are food eaters, too

USFRA is an organization involving more than 90 farmer and rancher-led organization and agricultural partners representing virtually all aspects of agriculture. They work together to engage in dialogue with consumers who have questions about how today’s food is grown and raised. USFRA is committed to continuous improvement and supporting U.S. farmers’ and ranchers’ efforts to increase confidence and trust in today’s agriculture. Similar to CommonGround, they want food eaters to see that farmers and ranchers are just like them – people who care about what we grow, raise and eat – and are relatable. One of their main programs is a Food Dialogues format that brings together food raiser, eaters and business together to share and solve issues we face today.

Another great resource for food eaters is GMOAnswers.com. It shares easy-to-understand messages about what GMOs are and why farmers use them. It allows for anybody to ask questions and they assure those questions are answered. They use peer-reviewed information and useful experts to answer the questions so they stay objective. Go check it out for yourself: GMOAnswers.com.

GMOs and biotechnology are not meant to be scary, secretive or subjective. They have been around for over 20 years and not one case of human illness has resulted. There are just a lot of unknowns, and we are farmers want to make sure food eaters understand why it is what we do and why we care. Let’s all come to the table to discuss GMOs and why they can be a sustainable part of our future!

Watch these videos about GMOs/Biotechnology from The Cob Squad!

VIDEO: Kernels of Truth–GMO Safety

Transparency Builds Trust

It’s simple: If you increase transparency, you will increase trust.

A new report from The Center for Food Integrity’s (CFI) proved this in when it comes to consumer trust in food. In CFI's latest research, A Clear View of Transparency and How it Builds Consumer Trust, provides proof that transparency builds trust and identifies the most effective practices for building consumer trust.

“Transparency works,” said Charlie Arnot, CFI CEO in a news release. “We have statistical data to show that increasing transparency in farming, food production and processing will increase consumer trust.”

This year’s research is the culmination of three years of work on the concept of increasing food system transparency. Consumers have been asking for greater transparency and there have been varying attempts to define it. CFI’s research not only defines it, but now provides a clear path to achieve it and address the growing skepticism about food.

An online survey of 2,000 people explored which attributes are most important to consumers when it comes to trust-building transparency – policies, practices, performance or verification.

The 2015 research focused on areas that are important to consumers:

• Impact of Food on Health 
• Food Safety
• Impact on the Environment
• Human/Labor Rights
• Treatment of Animals Raised for Food
• Business Ethics in Food Production

The report highlights the 2015 consumer trust research and some best practices that the food system can use as a guide for increasing transparency. The study also reveals who the public holds most responsible for demonstrating transparency, specific areas where they expect transparency, and precisely where consumers want to access information that is most important to them.

Discover more about what CFI is doing and how this research can help farmers reach consumers at FoodIntegrity.org and BestFoodFacts.org. 

Social Soil: Social Media That Farmers Should Be Using In 2016

*Welcome to Social Soil - a series of social media posts for farmers. Whether you're a seasoned social media veteran or just trying to start, we want to help farmers with their "ag+advocacy" skills ("AGvocacy") so together we can promote Nebraska corn and agriculture.*


The experts from Social Examiner.com gave some great advice on what social media platforms and strategies to focus on this year. And we thought that farmers and ranchers - and anyone involved in agriculture - could benefit from a few of these ideas.

#1: Social Media Goes Private
Farmers like more privacy so this should appeal to them and get you more comfortable using social media as a way to communicate. Social media is going more private: private groups and messaging apps. Whether it’s on Facebook or LinkedIn, we’re already starting to see usage of private groups take hold and a surge in people creating them. Snapchat started this, but the shift to messaging apps (think Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Line, etc.) is going to force brands to get a lot more private and personal with their social media expenditure.

What does all of this mean? We are pushing ever closer to a new kind of social media: one that happens on these public and for-profit channels and networks, but one where the best (and possibly most valuable) content can only be seen by those who are granted permission to see it… or by a small group of people.

#3: Companies Adapt Social Strategies Around People 
SE experts say that 2016 will be the year where more companies implement adaptive social. Meaning, they are focusing efforts not just around marketing initiatives, but how they can engage with people.

This couldn't be more perfect for agriculture! We need to focus on how to reach people through social media to give them an emotional and real connection to how food is raised. This will result in more participation and ultimately a greater reach and more authentic trust for topics around food and farm.

Center for Food Integrity and AFBF connect with people using stories about real people raising real food.

#4: Visuals Customized By Platform Become Critical 
Visual marketing will continue to grow in 2016, making it absolutely necessary for brands to have a solid plan for visuals including multimedia such as long- and short-form video for YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, as well as graphics for blog content.

The same goes for farmers and ranchers. Now more than ever, sharing images of everyday life on the farm or ranch is critical to sharing our story and making a personal connection with consumers.

Instagram from Mark Jagels, Davenport, Neb., @mjagz62

See the whole list from SE experts here.

Talking ag with a vegan

I had an opportunity with CommonGround recently to attend a dinner with media, dietitians, nutritionists and bloggers. It was a great event to reach influencers who have day-to-day interaction with consumers who have questions about food and what farmers and ranchers do.

At my table were three dietitians: one was a pro-GMO spokesperson, one was in administration and one was ---- a vegan. I was really nervous when I first met him hoping that he didn't immediately ram down my throat about modern ag production practices. And I also hoped I could keep my cool and not let him dominate the conversation.

The conversation started well with the table being open to hearing what I do as a farm woman, mom and blogger, as well as learning about what each of them do in their field of practice. It was interesting to me that what we do on our farm was (for the most-part) okay, but when the words "environment", "GMO", "climate change", "economics" and more were brought up, things got a little more heated. In all of the research that my "new friend" had done, I had known of a study that refuted his information and was peer-reviewed and backed by sound-science. He rattled off numbers (I later found out this is what he does in his spare time - research!) and I was pretty impressed by the passion that he had for wanting to change the world to be meat-free and all organic - but he had his facts all wrong because he simply hasn't seen it done, been to a farm or ranch, and had a very naive view of the rest of the world.

We had a healthy debate on how unrealistic it is for the WHOLE world to turn meat-free and all organic. There is a place for these markets and I totally support that (I told him I even supported him being vegan - the sentiment was not returned). The biggest point that I wanted to get across to him was the availability of CHOICE that we have here in the U.S. I was grateful for the GMO-supporter-dietitian that was also at our table because she has done work all over the world and agreed that we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world with the most choices.

While a little disappointed I wasn't able to "change" my vegan-friend's mind about modern agriculture, it was a good reminder that he is in the 10% of the population whose mind cannot be changed on a matter they think they know all about (I'm not saying all vegans are this way). While I came away from the dinner disheartened over what I "should have said" to try to change his mind, I realized that there were two other sets of ears at the table who were more likely in the "move-able middle", 80% of the population that we should really be focusing our efforts on who we can give information to for them to make an educated decision. The remaining 10% are those of us in agriculture and consumers we already have "on board" and supporting our cause.

It is an exciting time in agriculture to be able to share our story with a wide-consumer base of people who are truly interested in how their food is raised. What are you doing to reach out and share your story to the "move-able middle"?

Words that build trust

In most relationships, saying the right thing or communicating effectively helps keep that relationship healthy. There is no difference in a farmer’s relationship with food consumers.

Farmers tend to have their own language with words that mean something to them in their working environment. Yet, while “production”, “yield” and “precision” might mean great things to them, food consumers are really unsure of what they mean and it can diminish the trust they have in the food production system.

The U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) has been working for some time on how to connect with our consumers – and USFRA is supported partly by corn checkoff dollars so we care about the research they are doing.

USFRA encourages farmers to choose their words carefully when communicating with consumers. Here are some of the words/phrases that research suggests are often most effective:

A great example given by CommonGround Iowa volunteer and farmer, Julie Kenney is:

“As farmers, we’re committed to continuous improvement and to producing more with less. We’ve learned from previous generations and have adopted new technology over the years to farm more efficiently. We want to be good stewards of the land so it’s available for our children to farm someday, should they choose.” 

Sounds like a great, easy 30-second elevator speech to me. Challenge for this next week, do you have your 30-second elevator speech ready if a consumer asks you what you do – and does it include words that build trust?

Dude, Where’s My Consumer?

In Rabobank’s new report, “Dude, Where’s My Consumer?”, many of America’s largest food and beverage companies are in trouble. Iconic brands are increasingly out of favor with U.S. consumers, where their mark is still set at reaching baby boomers. But how will they reach the up & coming consumers: millennials?

The report gives 5 ways that America’s big brands can reconnect with the U.S. consumer. (read more here…)

In today’s agriculture, people often think about farmers markets as the best place for farmers to connect with consumers. But for farmers growing commodity crops (like corn, soybeans, cattle….) that aren’t marketed at farmers markets, how can they connect with their consumers?

They need to do what their farmer friends are doing at farmers markets. One-on-one human connection. What, how?

In today's time of information overload, people need to connect face-to-face. This is why farmers markets are so successful and popular. But for corn farmers who do not market their products at farmers markets, how can they do this?

Social media plays a big role, but it’s not just about social media. This one-on-one, face-to-face communication can happen on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram but also by shaking hands with someone at church or your kids’ ballgames. There are several ways to have productive, civil conversation.

Farmers are already trusted. But by being positive, inclusive and real, methods of farming and uses for commodity agriculture will begin to build more trust.

A great idea to go along with face-to-face connections and social media that doesn’t take much time or effort are pictures. People love pictures. So by simply “showing” what they are doing, farmers will earn trust by being positive, inclusive and real. Visuals aren’t limited to social media. Invite influencers and media (that you trust) to your farm to take pictures and share what you do and why you do it.

Dude, are you my consumer? Let me show you what farming is all about….

Chipotle’s Bold Move to GMO Free…But Will it Last?

Two weeks ago, Chipotle took its propaganda filled marketing campaign to a troubling new level when it announced that its entire menu will be GMO-free—meaning nothing served at its fast-food restaurant chains will contain ingredients derived from genetically modified plants or animals. According to their website, the company is “G-M-Over It” and has decided that serving GMO’s in their restaurants does not align with their vision of “food with integrity.”

Even though Chipotle’s GMO stance opposes the best scientific knowledge in the world, the company has taken a bold stance that GMO’s are unsafe and have long-term implications that consumers should be concerned about. But what scientific evidence supports these claims? According to a 2014 report by the World Resources Institute, GMO-derived foods have been widely consumed for years and “there is no evidence that GM crops have actually harmed human health.”

The bottom line…this GMO-free campaign has satisfied some of Chipotle’s most loyal and health-conscious guacamole fans, however, it has missed a huge opportunity to ethically educate American’s about where their food comes from.

So was Chipotle’s declaration to be “G-M-Over It” a good choice? Will this marketing hype last? Will consumers actually fall for their unethical propaganda? In a recent article on NPR, writer Dan Charles entertains “why we can’t take chipotle’s GMO announcement all that seriously” with five rational points that every consumer should be aware of. We highlighted a few below…

1. Soda

At the bottom of the page that announces Chipotle’s new policy, you’ll find the following statement: "Many of the beverages sold in our restaurants contain genetically modified ingredients, including those containing corn syrup, which is almost always made from GMO corn."

Looks like the fast-food giant is making quite the exception to its GMO-free policy when it comes to sugary drinks.

2. The "superweed" double standard

As an example of the ways that GMOs can damage the environment, Chipotle points to the problems caused by herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and how they encourage farmers to use a single herbicide, usually glyphosate, or Roundup. This, in turn, has led to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, which Chipotle calls "superweeds." Chipotle's answer to this, per its new non-GMO policy, is to switch from soybean oil to sunflower oil.

The problem is, many sunflower varieties, while not genetically modified, also are herbicide-tolerant. They were bred to tolerate a class of herbicides called ALS inhibitors. And since farmers starting relying on those herbicides, many weeds have evolved resistance to them. In fact, many more weeds have become resistant to ALS inhibitors than to glyphosate.

Why should Chipotle bemoan the emergence of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, yet not to other weedkillers?

3. Meat

Chipotle says it wasn't too difficult or expensive to remove GMO ingredients from its burritos. It simply had to find new suppliers for corn flour and cooking oil.

It would be much harder, and presumably more expensive, to use only meat from pigs or chickens that consumed a non-GMO diet. That's because the amount of corn or soybeans required to feed Chipotle's animals is vastly larger than what's needed for its tortillas or cooking oil. Finding a new supply of animal feed would raise costs, so Chipotle isn't doing it.

To view the full NPR article, click here.

"New Potatoes" of a GM variety

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved commercial planting of a potato that is genetically modified to resist bruising and to produce less of a chemical that has caused cancer in animals.

The USDA this month gave the Boise, Idaho-based company, J.R. Simplot Co. permission to begin commercial planting of its new spud, called the "Innate" potato. The company altered the potato's DNA so it produces less acrylamide, which is suspected to be a human carcinogen. Potatoes naturally produce the chemical when they're cooked at high temperatures.

The potato is also engineered to resist bruising, which can cause black spots in the potatoes, making them less desirable to buyers.

Simplot is a major supplier of french fries, hash browns and other potato products for restaurant chains like McDonald's Corp. However, McDonald’s didn’t respond positively.

"McDonald's USA does not source GMO potatoes, nor do we have current plans to change our sourcing practices," the company said in a statement.

But Simplot didn't create this GM potato product for McDonald's - or any fast food restaurant for that matter. 

Simplot spokesman Doug Cole didn't address the company's plans to sell to the fast-food industry or the dehydrated potato industry, which both have urged growers against planting GMO potatoes. But Cole said the fresh potato market would embrace Innate.

The potato joins only eight other crops that have been USDA-approved for commercial production in the U.S.: corn (field and sweet), soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya and squash. This new option of growing GM potatoes shouldn’t be a scare to consumers. It is worth noting that no commercially available crops in the United States were created by nature alone. Humans, over our history, have altered all of our crops, often for taste or yield or disease resistance.

Top 10 GMO questions

A new national survey commissioned by GMO Answers and the Council for Biotechnology Information has identified the leading questions consumers have about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how food is grown.

The survey was conducted in order to identify, for the first time, the top 10 questions consumers have about GMOs and to open up the conversation on biotechnology's role in agriculture.

Over the next several weeks, scientists, farmers, doctors and other experts will answer one of the top 10 questions each week on the GMO Answers website and via Twitter. This blog will cover the top three questions.

Ipsos, a global market research company, conducted a national, random telephone survey of 1,006 American adults ages 18 and older. Participants were given a list of common questions about GMOs and were asked which ones they would be "most interested in having answered."

Cancerous?

Dr. Kevin Folta, interim chair and associate professor at the University of Florida's horticultural sciences department, answered the first question: Do GMOs cause cancer?

"The short answer is no, there is absolutely zero reputable evidence that GMO foods cause cancer. Cancer is a name applied to a spectrum of diseases where cells proliferate abnormally. There is no way that the subtle and well-understood alterations of a plant's genes can cause cancer," Folta explained. "There is nothing about the Bt protein (used in insect resistance and also in organic pest control), the EPSPS enzyme (which confers herbicide resistance simply by substituting for the native enzyme in the plant) or the process itself that would induce the genetic changes in human cells that would lead to cancer. It is just not plausible.

"Some of the confusion comes from reports where the Bt protein or glyphosate (the herbicide used on some biotech crops) is applied to cell lines in a petri dish, and the cells show changes associated with stress and perhaps abnormal proliferation," Folta said. "However, cells in a dish do not behave like cells in the body. Through years of careful evaluation, there is no reliable evidence that GM (genetically modified) foods cause the same changes in a living organism."

Continue reading…

Allergenic?

Lisa Katic, a registered dietician, shared her perspective for the second question: Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?

"No commercially available crops contain allergens that have been created by genetically engineering a seed/plant, and the rigorous testing process ensures that will never happen," she explained.

According to Katic, food allergies are mainly caused by eight major foods — milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, fish and shellfish — and account for about 90% of reported food allergies in the U.S.

"First, it is important to note that only one of these eight major allergens listed above is a potential product of biotechnology, and that is soy. Of the remaining seven allergens listed, none is commercially available in genetically modified varieties," Katic explained.

She noted that if a person is allergic to a non-GM plant, he or she will also be allergic to the plant's GMO counterpart, "but GMOs do not introduce any new allergens. In fact, researchers, academics and companies are working on new GMOs that have the potential to help people in this area — for example, peanuts with very low allergen levels that have the potential to eliminate life-threatening allergies to peanuts."

Continue reading…

No choice?

The third week showcased the question: Are big companies forcing farmers to grow GMOs? Indiana corn and soybean farmer Brian Scott addressed this question by talking about his own experience purchasing seed for his farm.

"None of the seed companies force farmers like me to buy any particular product. ... Salespeople might push the latest and greatest, but since every farm operates a little bit differently from the next one, seed choice is very important," Scott explained.

He added that seed companies that sell GM seeds also have many non-GMO varieties.

"I can buy any seed from any vendor I choose from one year to the next. Just because I bought Monsanto, Pioneer or Syngenta seeds one year doesn't mean I have to buy seed from any one of them the following year," he explained.

Scott noted that farmers do sign technology use agreements in relation to patented products but said nothing in the contracts sets a requirement for future purchases or even purchases of other products during the growing season.

To follow the dialogue on the other questions or to view more information on GMOs, visit GMOAnswers.com.

What consumers say…

Recent consumer research from The Center for Food Integrity found three key perceptions about the food system in the United States:

1. Consumers believe industrial processes are inherently impersonal. People cannot relate to them.
   
2. Consumers believe that anything produced at a large scale has a greater opportunity for error—and thanks to the incredible efficiency in our food distribution system, the impact of error is faster and greater.
   
3. Consumers believe that larger entities will put profit ahead of public interest—and put their obligation to shareholders ahead of responsibility to consumers.

“It’s very clear that consumers want to trust their food system, but they find it more difficult to trust a ‘company’ than a ‘person’,” said Alan Tiemann of Seward, a farmer-director on the Nebraska Corn Board. “That’s why it is increasingly important for all of us in agriculture to take the personal responsibility to meet consumers, listen to what’s on their minds and do what we must to answer their questions and earn their trust and confidence.”