Thursday, October 20, 2011

A Survey Of The Graphics For The GMO Labeling Campaign

It is interesting to explore the pictures or graphics that accompany blogs, web pages and articles supporting the campaign for labeling of foods containing GMOs.  A great many of these images are seriously misleading.  This is ironic for a campaign that is spearheaded by a group called the "Truth In Labeling Coalition"

The Hypodermic Needle Theme
The most frequent theme in these graphics is that of a large hypodermic needle injecting a piece of fruit, a tomato, or some other produce item.  In an article about GMOs in "natural"  cereals, TG daily features an image with no less than 11 needles in five tomatoes.   Treehugger uses the same photo which is from Getty Images.  Organic life style also has a drawing of a tomato being injected. Eat Local has the image of someone in a lab coat injecting an apple. Grist features an "infographic" with a cluster of grapes being injected. uses the same image.

Why The Images Are Misleading

While clearly these images are effectively emotive, they are misleading in at least three ways.  First, The process of genetic engineering of plants does not involve a hypodermic needle in any way.  Second, the the process occurs at a single cell level, not with some massive amount of material being injected into a ready-to-eat food item. (A site called Ask Roger that sells herbal remedies sets the record here with an image of a huge hypodermic of purple liquid being injected into an orange). Finally, the foods most often pictured are not currently GMO crops, and most are unlikely ever to be genetically engineered for commercial production.

Non-GMO Crops Usually Pictured

The picturing of non-GMO crop examples is widespread.  Even the website for the Truth in Labeling Coalition itself has a side banner of food images which pictures several non-GMO crops.  The image on has a DNA gel in the background which is more relevant, but also pictures tomatoes.  There has not been a GMO tomato on the market for more than a decade.  The foods pictured on a site called Organic Its Worth pictures the non-GMO crops, radishes and lettuce.  Some sites actually picture crops that are actually genetically engineered on a commercial scale, but this is not that common.

Other Misleading Themes

The hypodermic is not the only example of a misleading graphic.  An "info-graphic" on Treehugger is typical of another common theme straight out of the old "what do you get if you cross a ... and a ..." jokes of childhood.   It pictures strawberry + fish = a sort of half strawberry fish.  That goes back to a long since abandoned effort to make a frost tolerant strawberry using an anti-freezing protein from a fish.  It was never commercial and in fact animal genes are not used in any current GMO crops.  Even if they were, they would not result in some strange chimera.  In an article titled, "Just Label It", actually leads with a picture of an actual GMO crop (field corn), but then follows with a depiction of  some strange orange squash with eyes and fangs. The Groundswell has an image of ears of corn, but one is a grenade.  A site interestingly called goes with the classic Frankenstein picture. goes with an image of a mock "Hungry Man Frozen Dinner" combining the Frankenstein combined with no less than three chimeras (a potato with eyes, a tomato with a fish tail and a broccoli/snail hybrid).  A link titled "Picture related to GMO" on features a bowl of strawberries, one of which is bright blue.

How Does Disinformation Fit With A Campaign About "Truth?"

The genre of emotive and largely misleading images to depict biotechnology is certainly not new, but it is problematic that it is being so widely used by those that support manditory labeling.  The labeling campaign is being positioned as a common sense argument about the need to give of consumers accurate information from which to make rational decisions.   If that is the goal, why do so many promoters of the idea employ misleading and emotional imagery?

GMO labeling may well need to be discussed, even 15 years into large scale use.  But such a discussion will only be helpful for consumers if it could be based on accurate information - and graphics.

p.s.  It is interesting that although these images are easily found by searching Google Images or Flickr, virtually none are available for free commercial use through something like Creative Commons.  Most of sites that use them make no reference to source with the one exception of Getty Images listed above.  

You are invited to comment here or to email me at  My website is Applied Mythology.


  1. It might interest you that the fish gene, which encodes a protein that prevents ice crystal formation, has been engineered into a bacterium, and the resultant (ex-) fish protein has been add (legally) to most European ice-creams, to prevent ice-crystal formation when the freezer temperature is too high.

    1. I didn't know that. Interesting. Europe has always had a pretty open mind about "White Biotechnology" in places like industrial fermentations, but I didn't know that particular use in food.

  2. A new picture depicting someone pouring RoundUp onto a bowl of wheaties-like cereal is making the rounds. The source is Organic Consumers Millions against Monsanto. I've been surprised recently to learn how many people really do believe that RoundUp is injected into plants. Misleading photos like these just reinforce that belief.

    1. When I was a kid, maybe in first or second grade elementary school, we'd have science fairs. All kinds of cool little experiments children, and their parents would develop. When I think of products like RoundUp (Glyphosate) on food crops, it always reminds me of the kid who simply stuck the top of a piece of celery into a glass of red food colored water. You'd see clearly where absorption of water, nutrients and contaminants works it's way into the plant cells. There's no way anyone can tell me spraying fields with Glyphosate, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides just magically disappears. They're all permeated into the entire plant. Wrongly educated by biotech salesmen, American farmers are likely as responsible for as many deaths and illnesses as the oil and gas industries are. Nature always has a way of biting man's ass when he tampers with her.

    2. Glyphosate actually goes the other way in a plant. If you spray it on the leaves it moves downward in the phloem, not up in the xylem like your second grade celery "experiment." That is why it is so effective at killing weeds. What you may not realize is that since the EPA was established in 1968, we have been carefully regulating pesticides and one of the things that has to be characterized for every one of them is what happens to the chemical in the plant over time. There is nothing magic about the fact that the glyphosate is metabolized over time and is gone long before the plant is harvested. That said, glyphosate starts out less toxic than vitamin C to us. Your nasty and baseless charge against farmers only reflects your lack of knowledge about toxicology and plant metabolism.

    3. s.d. savage is correct, al.

      It's also insulting to farmers. They are not stupid. I know many more gullible non-farmers than gullible farmers.


Please send comments if you wish. Sorry about the word verification, but I'm getting tons of spam comments