The use of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in our food is controversial. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, the exact reasons for the controversy is a bit hazy to many people. Some would argue that GMOs are unsafe, not nutritious, or bad for the environment, but these statements are scientifically incorrect. In reality, the source of controversy is not scientific, but ethical and political. Freedom of choice, the right to know, the ethics of genetic engineering and the complex economics of global agriculture are what make GMOs controversial. Despite this, perfectly reasonable campaigns for labeling of GMOs become intertwined with pseudoscientific propaganda proclaiming GMOs to be toxic culprit for a list of modern day maladies that seems to have no end.

The task of educating others on the benefits and potential risks of GMO food is made extremely difficult by these inherent controversies of the subject. As scientists and science advocates wrestle with this difficult task, ads such as the Stonyfield Farms spot shown above only serve to confuse the issue further.

This ad cynically uses children to deliver a decidedly anti-GMO message, labeling GMOs “monstrous”, and bringing up the “fish tomato,” a commonly misunderstood target of anti-GMO crusaders. The text overlay urges the viewer to “avoid GMOs” and “join the organic revolution”.

This type of misleading ad only fuels distrust of GMOs, with vague suggestions that they are “bad.” Using children makes it even worse. It is irresponsible to teach children that GMOs are “monstrous.” The fish tomato reference is particularly biased. Not only were these tomatoes never sold or eaten by a single person, there are currently no commercially available GMO tomatoes at all, and Stonyfield does not make a tomato yogurt as far as we know.

To make matters worse, after several science advocates cried foul, Stonyfield doubled-down by calling their critics “trolls”. In their statement (read it here), they did back off the “GMOs are bad” message, saying, “We do not believe that eating GMOs has been proven harmful to your health.” However, they are back to demonizing GMOs a few sentences later:

“The majority of GMO crops used by farmers today require the use of toxic herbicides. The use of glyphosate, which has been categorized as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization, has increased nearly 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996.”

This is statement is highly misleading. GMO crops do not require the use of roundup any more than regular crops, though it is used often to control weeds in the vicinity of genetically-modified “round-up ready” crops. Also ,the World Health Organization (WHO) has not classified glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) as a carcinogen. This was done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC). While IRAC is part of the WHO, the WHO disagrees, and classifies glyphosate as “unlikely to be a human carcinogen”. Worst of all, they label glyphosate as “toxic” which in this context has no meaning – toxic to what, and at what dose?

Stonyfield is also strongly implying that they do not feed their cows crops which were treated with pesticides. This is also false. Organic farming allows the use of certain pesticides, including the spraying of Bt toxin, which is the insecticide engineered into many GMO crops. It is likely that cows eating organic feed are exposed to higher levels of Bt pesticide than those that eat non-organic feed. That’s not to say that organic yogurt isn’t safe – it is, and so is non-organic yogurt.

The Stonyfield ad also includes a clear promotion of labeling GMO foods. The CEO and co-founder of Stonyfields, Gary Hirshberg, is also the chairman of Just Label It, a group which promotes the labeling of GMO foods. The labeling of GMO foods seems like a worthy conversation to have, but the promotion of a pro-labeling viewpoint by a company which will clearly benefit from such regulations, in an ad featuring children seems less like a sincere attempt to make a positive change in the world, and more like an example of corporate greed.

Standing up for science by countering misleading ads is not trolling, it’s science advocacy, and selling yogurt by exploiting people’s fears is shameful.