As a science site, we can continually be baffled that both the left and the right can find something to be critical about.   Some on the right are critical of stem cell research or climate science (Republicans) while some on the left are critical of genetically modified foods or vaccines (Democrats) - to science, it doesn't make much sense.

But not everyone here is necessarily a scientist and we have the most diverse cross-section of both readers and contributors of any site around so I'm going to make you aware of something even if I don't actually agree with it - I trust your smarts enough to make your own decisions so we don't need to do framing here.    As you may know, if I had my way nothing my family eats would be anything except things killed, cleaned and cooked by me but that isn't entirely practical where I live - or for most people these days.   So I get where the following folks are coming from, but they are wrong.   I get a lot of press releases, as you can imagine, but this one is at least an interesting talking point and it is too long for a Corkboard post but not enough to be an article.  So a blog it is.

Something called The Institute for Responsible Technology is having a 30-day Healthier Eating Challenge and to help with awareness they are providing a guide of non-GM foods to take shopping with you.   Now, on a science site we have to note that while E. coli from organic foods has given hundreds of people food poisoning and killed a few in the last two years, the number of instances of GM food giving anyone so much as a tummy twitter in their history is sitting at zero.   Regardless, just like the vaccine thing I mention above, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

It's apparently not easy to avoid GM foods.   Their blurb says the main GMO sources are soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola so everything from vegetable oil to bread likely contains some level of GMOs.   I don't know if that is accurate or not but it seems reasonable.   If so, though, it's actually a much bigger endorsement of GM foods since no one has turned into a mutant zombie or gotten cancer from bread.

Some of what they recommend is a little more confusing.    If you want to avoid GM foods in a restaurant, they say "Avoid certain types of menu entrees" - like what?     They don't say.

IRT Managing  Director Charles Burkam doesn't hesitate to bring out the non-science advocacy by including the quote, "Consumers are often shocked to find out that about 70% of processed foods in their pantry have some level of GMO toxins which carry documented health risks."

Why would someone send that claim to a science site?    Where is that documented?   Does Lee Silver know about this?    There are no documented health risks in GM foods, though on activist sites I have seen that it supposedly causes cancer.   Obviously it is not a bad idea to use caution, like I said above I want to prepare everything and anything my family eats, but we have a growing worldwide population and we need more efficient ways to feed them.   For example, should bananas be "genetically modified" to resist Panama Disease or should we use pesticides?   Or let people not eat?

Greenpeace, among the more idiotic activist groups, had a protest go awry in 2007 when they dumped  papayas in front of the Bangkok Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry to protest a lifting of the GM ban - and hungry Thai people grabbed them all and ate them.

People on the streets of Thailand seem to understand science better than activists with too much money.

It's mostly PR, not science, like a lot of these issues are until they are resolved.   Basically they need to mobilize people to get donations and that requires new crises on regular schedules.   If you're a genetically modified food fan I suggest you do your own PR campaign and call it "biofortification" instead of "frankenfood."

In the meantime, if you agree with IRT that GM foods are bad you can help them reach a 'Non-GMO tipping point', basically by not buying the stuff.    It's true that free market principles (are there any of those left?  It would seem online science is the only thing the US government is not buying interest in via a bailout) will solve these problems better than vague, unsubstantiated claims about health issues will.    

As always with science and policy issues, I just want to give you some data (and my opinion, since this is my column) so do with it what you will.  If you want to download their Non-GM shopping guide, you can get it here, though other environmental groups are not going to be happy about you printing it off.