|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 01:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 01:39 oneofthem wrote: the regulation is already in place. labeling though is another matter. at the bottom of the issue is simply this, consumer desire is insufficient justification for a compulsory labeling law, actual tangible risk has to exist. Tangible risk? If tangible risk exists you don't label it, you ban it... well yes, that would be the case given current regulatory regime on GM foods, something that does not apply for products like tobacco.
so yes, labeling is made doubly superfluous because if there is risk the existing regulatory regime already covers it.
|
On October 21 2014 01:58 oneofthem wrote: because labeling has costs and mandatory labeling imposes those costs. this is the court consensus as well. if you are too lazy to research i can find cases but that would be perpetuating laziness.
this is not a case of knowledge, just associative phobia.
Look, either a sizeable portion of the population demands which means that we should take democratic opinion into account, or not that many people would be deterred anyway. I don't think you can argue both at once.
Unless you're saying it's a sweet spot where costs are prohibitive and democratic concerns are not actually high.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's no democratic concern here. you just call it the cost of bad politics when the democracy demands something bad.
|
On October 21 2014 02:34 oneofthem wrote: there's no democratic concern here. you just call it the cost of bad politics when the democracy demands something bad.
This is not about human rights or something and therefore should be essentially at the whim of the majoritarian public (through representation and all that). I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
|
First, let me say that I don't think GMOs pose a direct threat when consumed and most likely the regulatory measures are sufficient to keep it this way. However it is pretty obvious that widespread use of GMOs will lead to unintended consequences in some ecosystems, especially if the plants are made to be toxic against certain pests or are made to be immune against a pesticide which will then be used much more aggressively than before. This is of course a general feature of industrial agriculture but the potential for possibly bad consequences is increased by widespread use of GMOs (although not related to GMOs, check sudden bee death for unforseen and not well understood consequences). This entails how much time an ecosystem has to adapt, how big the changes are it has to adapt to and also genetic diversity. In general genetic diversity is important to keep a production process robust (check bananas for a negative example). Our (global) industrial agriculture is already highly dependent on things like oil, fertilizer, pesticides etc. and through these even to financial markets. Which is of course especially bad for poor countries who cannot easily balance these factors (recently, monopolistic centralized control of the seeds can be added as another factor). It also keeps them in an unhealthy state of dependency. All of these systemic problems are increased by GMOs.
I am not on principle against genetic manipulation, however applying it very fast on a global scale especially in a highly competetive way with only the profit motive as a guide is pretty risky in my opinion. I have to read up on the benefits of GMOs in terms of mitigating famines etc. although at the moment I am a bit sceptical (and this would not really be an argument for using them in first world countries).
|
It's not like the labeling of GMO (here in Europe) is big red stickers on the front page. I don't know anyone that actively check for GMO-labeling. If people care enough not to buy GMO they usually buy mainly ecological food anyway.
|
On October 20 2014 22:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 12:59 IgnE wrote: On October 20 2014 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2014 10:13 Nyxisto wrote:On October 20 2014 09:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2014 01:11 Souma wrote: It is not at all justifiable to not label things just because of "irrational fear" or "burden." If something is misunderstood, that misunderstanding should be corrected the proper way (through education) rather than hiding stuff from the public. People have a right to know what they are putting in their mouths. Whether or not someone chooses to eat a specific product is up to them - you're practically forcing people to eat GMOs by not telling them and that is just not acceptable even if GMOs are harmless. Considering the history of our nation and certain products, I think people are well within their rights to be cautious, and whether you think someone is being irrational or not is beside the point. There's usually a list of ingredients on the package. If there's a health concern with the product, like peanut allergies, that will be listed as well. Generally though you don't require 'novelty' information on the package. You don't need to know if the farmer received a subsidy, used union labor, paid taxes, served in the armed forces, touches children, goes to church, is a bastard who plays warlock zoo, or anything else of the sort. Currently GMOs fall into that category of novelty information because there isn't a reason to think of them as unsafe. So posting a GMO label doesn't really tell the consumer anything worthwhile. There actually already have been adverse effects of genetically modified food. already twenty years ago genetically modified soybeans (with partial dna of the Brazil-nut) caused allergical reactions in people that were allergical to the Brazil-Nut. Genetically modifying stuff actually may have very real effects, which people should be educated about and which they should know about when they buy products. The false comparisons are ridiculously silly. This isn't about if the farmer growing your food is racist or part of a labour union or something unrelated. Genetically modifying food may drastically change the way it interacts with your body, this is very related and important to the consumer and as such should be something they should be informed about. A label that says "GMO" or "Non-GMO" doesn't tell you that the product contains Brazil-nut DNA either. GM products *may* have very real effects - hence they are regulated. If a GMO contains a allergic trigger, you can post that with the allergy information. Again, the GMO label doesn't tell you anything other than novelty information. That's great if you are allergic to Brazil nuts. But there are no good tests for identifying novel kinds of allergenic proteins that may be introduced into GM foods. what possible novel allergens may be introduced from single trait insertions? this argument of unpredictability should bear on non-GE breeding more than highly controlled and specific genetic engineering in modern GMOs.
There are a variety of different techniques for GE that produce a variety of different results. Mutation breeding, through for example, radiation, can lead to the creation of novel proteins for obvious reasons, and the plants are selected based on desirable phenotypes. Inserting specific genes from other species into corn or soy can lead to different glycosylation patterns or differing amounts of protein based on the insertion spot. It's not so simple as just saying, "let me insert this one trait over here into this plant" and everything is neat and tidy. Most genes are bundled with other genes, like promoters, markers, and terminators that can be separated and inserted into other areas of the genome. Genetic engineering methods are more likely to create double stranded short RNAs in plant foodstuffs that, if they survived our stomach environment, could insert themselves into our own cells. Are these risks substantial? No. Obviously not. Could some of these things happen through natural breeding methods? Yes. But to say, "science has this figured out, there is literally no difference at all between GMO and non-GMO" is just false.
To respond to other some points:
GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
|
On October 20 2014 16:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Well if you don't test your corn for being GM and you don't over spray one could end up with a large portion of GM corn from a variety of ways. It's not as if the corn grows with TM and a patent number on each ear. Re-seeding with GM corn that was inadvertently mixed with ones crop isn't that far fetched. On a slightly different note, consider the Runyons: Show nested quote +In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination.
Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?
The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property.
"I wasn't using their products, but yet they were pounding on my door demanding information, demanding records," Dave said. "It was just plain harassment is what they were doing." SourceQuite a few things in there that I would think would cause some concern for people all over the political spectrum. Most farmers don't replant with seeds from their own harvest so it's very unlikely that you'll end up with a dominantly GM crop by accident.
As for the Runyons situation - that's what courts are for. Runyons alleges that Monsanto acted improperly and Monsanto alleges that Runyons acted improperly. In some of these reported situations it turned out that the farmer was lying. The most famous example of that (Schmeiser case) is in the NPR article I linked. In other cases Monsanto overreached. That's just how it goes, and courts are there to figure it all out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 02:34 oneofthem wrote: there's no democratic concern here. you just call it the cost of bad politics when the democracy demands something bad. This is not about human rights or something and therefore should be essentially at the whim of the majoritarian public (through representation and all that). I don't see how you can argue otherwise. of course it is about human rights. property rights and fairness of coercive action. why should a group of irrational loons force through policy that will affect everyone?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and igne duh gm crop isnt going to solve all problems but they provide a great tool against many problems. the stuff about the particular herbicide used could use some tweaking but nothing to form broad negativity or criticism over.
the fantasy about educational effect of gmo labeling needs to stop. ok, you hate monsanto and ip. that is not an excuse to ignore empirical realities about the negative impact of labeling. if you are really concerned about education try having it in the school curriculum, since schools do serve lunch
|
If they are a great tool then it shouldn't be an issue to label them. If intensive farming of vast Monsanto monocultures is saving our planet and saving us from starvation it should be a symbol of pride.
I have no idea what you are talking about with "property rights," and requiring transparency on sourcing of materials is worth the mild coercion of forcing suppliers to label their products.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
labeling is not costless. it is also in the context of broad hysteria. i'm not sure you guys are serious about the issue if you can't even be serious about these very basic facts.
we've gone a couple pages and this is the residue, the same right to know argument?
|
On October 21 2014 00:22 oneofthem wrote: there's no life saved here because it's not more harmful than any other cabbage or tomato.
as for the harm of the labeling, beyond the economic impact, it is actually very bad for the base research environment. genetic engineering is a hugely promising technology and in its transition phase to broader, less monopoly and patent rent driven adoption. regulation or limiting it to out of sight industrial use will just be hugely self destructive for no good reason.
also apparently some people are trying to say the label thing will promote education. high quality comedy here. like that nazi drive for racial awareness education campaign a while back.
Godwin'sLaw coming through
I don't see how simply labeling stuff can be "dangerous" or "cause panic". Informed consumers making an informed decision. Isn't that supposed to how markets work? And well, nobody said it would be easy...
What's dangerous is things like saying
Personally, I don't believe in the "rational, informed consumer." There is too much choice and information out there already that obfuscates the important details needed to be analyzed to make a proper decision. By providing even more information, you're just giving people an easier route to selective bias to justify asinine positions.
That's being a nanny and wanting to protect the plebs from themselves and their stupidity. Including the bitter taste it gives of approving mostly everything an entity with more knowledge and supposedly benevolent intentions does.
It's a food label for god's sake. Worst case scenario - people will lose a few pounds and their awareness for what they put in their mouths increase.
Most likely outcome - nobody will give a shit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why do we even advertisement. it's just a label after all. this is getting delirious. i do hope this shit doesn't spread to new york. not that it'll stand up in vermont in court but the very debate is annoying enough.
|
On October 21 2014 08:07 oneofthem wrote: why do we even advertisement. it's just a label after all. this is getting delirious. i do hope this shit doesn't spread to new york. not that it'll stand up in vermont in court but the very debate is annoying enough.
Got no idea why we even advertisement. And what your point is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Gmo is a red herring. What we should do is end the farm bill.
|
On October 21 2014 08:16 oneofthem wrote: that'd be for the best.
I am heartbroken.
|
On October 21 2014 07:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 02:37 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2014 02:34 oneofthem wrote: there's no democratic concern here. you just call it the cost of bad politics when the democracy demands something bad. This is not about human rights or something and therefore should be essentially at the whim of the majoritarian public (through representation and all that). I don't see how you can argue otherwise. of course it is about human rights. property rights and fairness of coercive action. why should a group of irrational loons force through policy that will affect everyone?
I said human rights. Corporations aren't humans. I don't care about corporations' rights. Not even gonna shed a tear.
A group of irrational loons forcing through policy that will affect everyone? That's literally what democracy is. You're just hating on democracy. I know you think you have the correct answers for everyone, but personally I'd prefer the 'represent the people' development of policy.
|
On October 21 2014 07:28 oneofthem wrote: labeling is not costless. it is also in the context of broad hysteria. i'm not sure you guys are serious about the issue if you can't even be serious about these very basic facts.
we've gone a couple pages and this is the residue, the same right to know argument?
What are the costs of labeling? Spell them out for us.
My argument was that yes consumers should have a right to know if they ask for it, and that increasing transparency on food labels would rebuild some of the consumers' goodwill toward the food industry.
It doesn't really matter that much either way. I don't care if some corporations lose some sales because all the soy in their processed garbage comes from Monsanto. Labeling is a small step towards increased transparency about food sourcing, and I think we can all agree that knowing where your food comes from is a good thing.
|
|
|
|