![]()
“You are poisoning your children,” the woman told me calmly before walking back into the crowd of activists gathered for the Food Justice march this past October in Washington, DC. Activists from groups like March Against Monsanto and Moms Across America rallied because they believe Americans are at risk from our food supply. The spectacle was vaguely familiar to me, because my parents were also activists in the 60s (my dad is still involved in anti-poverty work) and I grew up with posters from Chez Panisse in my home. So it was hard to find myself on what felt like “the other side” of a social justice issue. But there I was protesting with a small group of science advocates because I believe we have more to fear from fear-mongers than our privileged American food system. My daughter has a life-threatening allergy to peanuts and tree-nuts, so I first became interested in GMOs because I kept reading that they were to blame for skyrocketing allergy rates. I started with “What is a GMO?” and soon found myself reexamining everything I thought I knew about biotech, organic food, pesticides and nutrition. I discovered that most of what I thought was true was false. So, yes, I now feed my kids conventional produce and GMOs, but … poison? Now, you can say a lot of things about my parenting – I yell too much, I don’t attend PTA meetings, I spend too much time on my phone — but I wasn’t prepared for the accusation that I’m poisoning my kids with potatoes. And yet, these kinds of accusations have become all too commonplace. The charge that moms are sickening and fattening their children with relatively benign food choices has become ubiquitous amongst professional food alarmists. For Halloween this year, Vani Hari, better known as the Food Babe, told us “How to Stop Poisoning the Neighborhood Children on Halloween.” Robert Lustig, anti-sugar crusader, has called sugar as addictive as heroin. And anti-biotech activist groups like Moms Across America blame GMOs for autism, food allergies and miscarriages. As a food allergy parent myself, I know how frightening it is when your child is at risk from something that you can’t see or make sense out of. Even though I know better, I cried to my daughter’s allergist that her allergies are my fault because I ate too much peanut butter when I was pregnant. I worried about what I could have done differently. Did I introduce solids too late? Too early? Maybe I should have tried baby-led weaning? But as hard as I was being on myself, judgment from other moms can feel even more damaging. The idea that GMOs, conventional produce and sugar are poison in the mouths of babes has created a whole new breed of sanctimommies and their entitled eater kids. These moms advocate for costly and complicated dietary choices because they insist that choosing only organic, non-GMO, “natural” foods will make all children healthier. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that their concern isn’t genuine. We’re constantly bombarded with frightening health statistics about children. Food allergies in children increased by 50% in the last decade or so. Asthma rates are also increasing — from 1 in 14 people in 2001 to 1 in 12 people in 2009. And while obesity rates have stabilized in some categories, 17% of kids between 2 and 19 are still obese. It’s no wonder that moms are looking for answers. But feeding GMO-free, organic and sugar-free foods won’t guarantee you healthy kids. Whether a food is GMO or organic only gives you information about how it was grown, not whether or not it’s a good source of nutrition. A non-GMO, organic, gluten-free cupcake sweetened with honey is still a god-damned cupcake, and a lot less healthful to a growing body than some conventional chicken and green beans. In fact, the amount of sugar kids consume is only one of many complex factors that can affect a child’s health. What these privileged diets are more likely to guarantee than a clean bill of health is a whole new generation of entitled eaters. I know, because I was once an all-organic, clean-eating sugar-free mom, too. I spent way too many hours hunting down obscure ingredients like coconut sugar and verifying whether my honey was indeed “real.” My kids weren’t any healthier. I was just making everyone miserable spending time and money chasing what I thought was healthier food. But the experience was valuable because it showed me how the “mommy wars” are no longer just about breastmilk and working outside of the home. The newest battle lines have been drawn over transgenic crops or so-called “frankenfoods.” Celebrity moms like Gwyneth Paltrow and Sarah Michelle Gellar, as well as Moms Across America food activists like Zen Honeycutt, are some of the most vocal opponents of GMOs. These moms refuse to accept the huge body of scientific evidence deeming these foods safe. Groups like the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization all agree that GMO foods are just as safe as conventionally grown food. And yet, a constant thread in these maternal narratives is a rejection of scientific expertise for “I’m just a mom” perspectives that seem relatable no matter how little evidence or science they rely on. Whether it’s Honeycutt or Paltrow, the common theme seems to be the maternal version of what writer Bret Easton Ellis dubs “the sentimental narrative.” Every statement necessarily begins with a modest “I’m not an expert” confession before tearfully explaining that there is a motherly protective instinct at work here, and that instinct shouldn’t be bothered with facts. Now, I’m a mom too, and I can appreciate how frustrating it is when experts imply that a mother’s own experience doesn’t count. It’s frustrating to feel like you’re just a statistic. The problem develops when we trust anecdotal evidence and sentimental narratives without ever examining them with any degree of skepticism or critical thinking. Yes, Honeycutt and Paltrow are mothers who oppose GMOs. But there are scientists and farmers who are mothers too. What about their experience?
