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.
In one of its strongest statements yet on the need to prepare for climate change, the Defense Department today released a report that says global warming "poses immediate risks to US national security" and will exacerbate national security-related threats ranging "from infectious disease to terrorism."
The report, embedded below, builds on climate readiness planning at the Pentagon that stretches back to the George W. Bush administration. But today's report is the first to frame climate change as a serious near-term challenge for strategic military operations; previous reports have tended to focus on long-term threats to bases and other infrastructure.
The report "is quite an evolution of the DoD's thinking on understanding and addressing climate threats," said Francesco Femia, co-director of the Center for Climate and Security. "The Department is not looking out into the future, it's looking at what's happening now."
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.
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.
I find that much more relevant information than GMO content. Fuck those guys! I don't want to support those jerks!
What kind of nonsense are you spouting Jonny... a product being a GMO is infinitely more comparable to what it is actually composed of as opposed to if it was taxed or not. And just because something is not important to you doesn't meant it's not important to others. Or have you forgotten that there are others in this country with differing concerns?
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.
those cases are rare, has low impact, and has more targeted solutions. traditional cross breeding may introduce similar allergens, but without the technophobia element no emotional response is excited.
again, information and choice seem to be the slogan words here, but general gmo labeling is neither.
On October 20 2014 10:06 Souma wrote: What kind of nonsense are you spouting Jonny... a product being a GMO is infinitely more comparable to what it is actually composed of as opposed to if it was taxed or not. And just because something is not important to you doesn't meant it's not important to others. Or have you forgotten that there are others in this country with differing concerns?
If it is important to you, then you can do your own research, or just look for the vast litany of items that wear their GMO free status on their sleeves, as it were. If you know enough to care about that stuff, then surely you can be trusted to buy items that meet your needs.
No need for everyone else to label that they have some GMO when both the risk and concern is small, espeically compared to the cost.
exactly because you may never know what kind of negative effects gmo food may have on certain people a general label is the exact right thing to do. Adverse effects may be unlikely but they're far from being non-existent, as shown in the above case. An unexpected allergic reaction is rare but pretty dangerous if you happen to be the person effected by it. If people do not want to take that risk they deserve to be informed beforehand, which 64 countries btw, already do.
we may never know a lot of things. that is not the proper way to talk about a quantitative risk assessment.
talking about the actual impact of this shit on the food market, we also don't want to enforce a euro-esque kind of market environment. more expensive, less diverse, less environmentally efficient.
if you want to tackle stuff like ethanol and whatnot go ahead but not having an irrational bias against GMO is one of the bright spots for U.S. agriculture. now, this gmo banning stuff is largely an excuse for protectionism against U.S. agriculture exports.
we don't know much about genetically modifying stuff even by scientific standards. It is an extraordinary young scientific field and it interacts with what we put in our bodies on the most fundamental level. If people don't want to eat this kind of food without knowing it that is a very reasonable claim.
Also I'd like to see evidence for the claim that Eurpean food is " more expensive, less diverse and less environmentally efficient."
So what about religious concerns and GMO's? If a Jewish person doesn't want to have oranges mixed with pig DNA, are we just saying "tough, we don't need to tell you, pig DNA in your oranges, like your religious concerns about it, are just a 'novelty' so stop lining up with those 'organic' thugs and just deal with your religious concerns being ignored"
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.
Surely it makes more sense for "organic" products to just label themselves GMO free?
If there really is a huge groundswell of consumer sentiment, people will vote with their wallets. The onus then goes to the brands that want to pander to that, and presumably attach a premium that covers whatever expenses they incur. Any false "GMO-free" labelling would presumably be caught in existing false advertising laws.
That seems far more sensible than putting a blanket requirement on the entire system, especially when that system includes little farmers and mum-and-dad outfits that have no way to deal with the costs associated.
I find anti-GMO stuff to be almost as bad as anti-vaccine stuff, but still.
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.
Yes it does. It tells them they are GMO. There is a difference.
People keep talking about costs, but other than consumer reaction influencing the market, what are the direct costs here? How hard is it to label something as GM? People change their labeling all the time, and I don't imagine that there's much cost involved in figuring out whether the stuff you are selling is GM or not.
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.
Personally, anti-GMO stuff makes me almost as angry as anti-vaccine stuff, but people are entitled to be ignorant and spend their money ignorantly.
I don't think any innocent children are dying or getting sick from anti-gmo stuff. But I get what you are saying. I think so far the real threat of GMO's isn't to our health but to the plants and products they are replacing. Which are tied to concerns about larger ecological impacts.
Also if some Monsanto corns genes from down the road drift into your farm is Monsanto going to come after you, the guy who bought it from them, or just ignore that their GM corn's DNA is getting utilized for free?
Seems like it would make way more sense if the companies fighting labeling GMO's had an alternative way to inform people about what is changing about their food and why it's a neutral/good thing.
I can't help but think of this commercial when this "GMO- Free" stuff comes up though...
On October 20 2014 12:38 Belisarius wrote: Surely it makes more sense for "organic" products to just label themselves GMO free?
If there really is a huge groundswell of consumer sentiment, people will vote with their wallets. The onus then goes to the brands that want to pander to that, and presumably attach a premium that covers whatever expenses they incur. Any false "GMO-free" labelling would presumably be caught in existing false advertising laws.
That seems far more sensible than putting a blanket requirement on the entire system, especially when that system includes little farmers and mum-and-dad outfits that have no way to deal with the costs associated.
I find anti-GMO stuff to be almost as bad as anti-vaccine stuff, but still.
Organic is already GMO-free so if you want to go GMO-free you can just buy organic.
GMO-free would differ in that it can be organically or conventionally produced. It would be a bit cheaper than organic, though the labeling is expected to increase costs somewhat.
Just like organic, GMO labeling will be used to convince people to spend more money on food with dubious claims of product superiority.
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.
Yes it does. It tells them they are GMO. There is a difference.
People keep talking about costs, but other than consumer reaction influencing the market, what are the direct costs here? How hard is it to label something as GM? People change their labeling all the time, and I don't imagine that there's much cost involved in figuring out whether the stuff you are selling is GM or not.
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.
I imagine most of cost is in government regulation and enforcement. This applies to both parties- those under the law and those enforcing it. Of course it's not hard to change your design around a bit.
Which is why it's easier for those who want GMO free food to seek it out. Those who provide organic or GMO free foods are more than willing to advertise that fact.
Personally, anti-GMO stuff makes me almost as angry as anti-vaccine stuff, but people are entitled to be ignorant and spend their money ignorantly.
I don't think any innocent children are dying or getting sick from anti-gmo stuff. But I get what you are saying. I think so far the real threat of GMO's isn't to our health but to the plants and products they are replacing. Which are tied to concerns about larger ecological impacts.
Also if some Monsanto corns genes from down the road drift into your farm is Monsanto going to come after you, the guy who bought it from them, or just ignore that their GM corn's DNA is getting utilized for free?
Seems like it would make way more sense if the companies fighting labeling GMO's had an alternative way to inform people about what is changing about their food and why it's a neutral/good thing.
I can't help but think of this commercial when this "GMO- Free" stuff comes up though...
You aren't allowed to knowingly replant Monsanto seeds. According to NPR, Monsanto has never sued anyone for having its seeds blown in and according to the company, if that happens, Monsanto will pay to have them removed.
Personally, anti-GMO stuff makes me almost as angry as anti-vaccine stuff, but people are entitled to be ignorant and spend their money ignorantly.
I don't think any innocent children are dying or getting sick from anti-gmo stuff. But I get what you are saying. I think so far the real threat of GMO's isn't to our health but to the plants and products they are replacing. Which are tied to concerns about larger ecological impacts.
Also if some Monsanto corns genes from down the road drift into your farm is Monsanto going to come after you, the guy who bought it from them, or just ignore that their GM corn's DNA is getting utilized for free?
Seems like it would make way more sense if the companies fighting labeling GMO's had an alternative way to inform people about what is changing about their food and why it's a neutral/good thing.
I can't help but think of this commercial when this "GMO- Free" stuff comes up though...
You aren't allowed to knowingly replant Monsanto seeds. According to NPR, Monsanto has never sued anyone for having its seeds blown in and according to the company, if that happens, Monsanto will pay to have them removed.
Well of course they have "never sued anyone for having its seeds blown in" because that isn't illegal. They sue them because they allege that it didn't happen that way.
And who can't look at a seed and tell if it isn't 'round-up ready' right?
On October 20 2014 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote: So what about religious concerns and GMO's? If a Jewish person doesn't want to have oranges mixed with pig DNA, are we just saying "tough, we don't need to tell you, pig DNA in your oranges, like your religious concerns about it, are just a 'novelty' so stop lining up with those 'organic' thugs and just deal with your religious concerns being ignored"
I'm thinking you don't understand genetic modification. And honestly, since when did you start caring about religious concerns?
EPT
