|
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. |
United States44012 Posts
On October 20 2014 13:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2014 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote: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... + Show Spoiler + 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. Source 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?
They sue them for deliberately breeding and selecting the descendants of the seeds blown in until they have nothing but the patented crop.
|
On October 20 2014 13:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 20 2014 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote: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... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzTXxZ3sNUI 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. Source 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?
How can you end up with a gigantic portion of your crop being Monsanto GMO without it being intentional? It's not like Monsanto mixed corn with super weeds that overtake normal corn (or whatever crop it was).
|
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:
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."
Source
Quite a few things in there that I would think would cause some concern for people all over the political spectrum.
|
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.
You're conflating shitty business practice and a weak, ineffective regulatory regime (that should have gotten Monsanto into a fuckload of trouble in and of itself, claiming agreement with a government agency that doesn't exist is outright fraud) with the dangers of genetic modification. Also, the whole religious argument is pretty much bunk, the protein is not made by a pig, it is made by a plant. Worst case you introduce a couple of synonymous mutations to make it not "from pig".
|
What would happen to me if I sent a letter to one of you saying I was a government agency that didn't exist and started harassing you at your home, demanding your property?
The second part of that article is pretty disgraceful:
74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.
"There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready."
The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him.
"It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning,"
Monsanto won its case against Parr, but the company, which won't comment on specific cases, has stopped its legal action against the Runyons.
|
On October 20 2014 18:11 Roe wrote:What would happen to me if I sent a letter to one of you saying I was a government agency that didn't exist and started harassing you at your home, demanding your property? The second part of that article is pretty disgraceful: Show nested quote +74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.
"There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready."
The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him.
"It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning,"
Monsanto won its case against Parr, but the company, which won't comment on specific cases, has stopped its legal action against the Runyons.
Depends on what you were asking for. It's interesting to bring up Parr's case since he lost the case, meaning a jury found that he was indeed helping farmers violate the patent.
|
On October 20 2014 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
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.
That's actually not true. For all the touting of AGW consensus, GMO actually has scientific consensus that it is safe, and, indeed, without GMO a large portion of the world would not be alive today. Your argument while not invalid, is about as flimsy as flimsy can get before it crumbles into dust. This is something I find funny on one side you have folks that just scream science and AGW and what not and then turn around and scream anti-science with stuff like GMO's and Vaccines.
|
On October 20 2014 19:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
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. That's actually not true. For all the touting of AGW consensus, GMO actually has scientific consensus that it is safe, and, indeed, without GMO a large portion of the world would not be alive today. Your argument while not invalid, is about as flimsy as flimsy can get before it crumbles into dust. This is something I find funny on one side you have folks that just scream science and AGW and what not and then turn around and scream anti-science with stuff like GMO's and Vaccines.
There is a huge difference between science on climate, and science on GMO tho. There's been many instances of scientists showing problems in the way GMO were tested and disagreeing with the result of some study, or pointing out the impure relationship between scientist and big GMO firm such as mosanto, while there is a huge 99% consensus on climate change.
Whatever, labelling GMO food has nothing to do with science. Why the consumer should not be able to tell where and how its food has been made ?
|
On October 20 2014 19:54 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 19:30 Wegandi wrote:On October 20 2014 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
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. That's actually not true. For all the touting of AGW consensus, GMO actually has scientific consensus that it is safe, and, indeed, without GMO a large portion of the world would not be alive today. Your argument while not invalid, is about as flimsy as flimsy can get before it crumbles into dust. This is something I find funny on one side you have folks that just scream science and AGW and what not and then turn around and scream anti-science with stuff like GMO's and Vaccines. There is a huge difference between science on climate, and science on GMO tho. There's been many instances of scientists showing problems in the way GMO were tested and disagreeing with the result of some study, or pointing out the impure relationship between scientist and big GMO firm such as mosanto, while there is a huge 99% consensus on climate change. Whatever, labelling GMO food has nothing to do with science. Why the consumer should not be able to tell where and how its food has been made ?
Producers shouldn't be forced to apply labels that could allow consumers to discriminate against them for unfair reasons. Could you imagine demanding a label if a black person was involved in the processing and insisting you want to avoid it because there might be an increased danger of contracting Ebola? It could have arguably legitimate merits, but it's pretty much cover for an unfair and racist policy.
Sure, there might be some kind of problem with GMO foods. But judging even by the reaction here, people want GMO markings to avoid products where Monsanto was part of the production line more than they sincerely care about the safety risks of genetic modification.
|
Norway28804 Posts
the GMO debate is funny to me because it turns everyone schizophrenic. Free market advocates who always argue that the informed consumer will make good choices want to hide product information because they think the consumer will then make wrong consumer choices based on that information. More market-critical voices who don't really believe that the consumer makes good informed choices in general, rather that consumption is wayy inflated because advertisement (in whatever form) makes people believe they need products they have little utility for which is bad because over-consumption is a problem, now insist that this branding will enable the consumer to make more informed choices. (Even if branding products GMO is something we should realize is basically gonna function as a possibly unjust anti-advertisement.)
Not fully the case here as I see even leftist-ish posters argue against branding, which is consistent, but I don't understand how belief in the intelligent informed consumer is consistent with a position of not wanting GMO foods labelled as such?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2014 19:54 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 19:30 Wegandi wrote:On October 20 2014 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
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. That's actually not true. For all the touting of AGW consensus, GMO actually has scientific consensus that it is safe, and, indeed, without GMO a large portion of the world would not be alive today. Your argument while not invalid, is about as flimsy as flimsy can get before it crumbles into dust. This is something I find funny on one side you have folks that just scream science and AGW and what not and then turn around and scream anti-science with stuff like GMO's and Vaccines. There is a huge difference between science on climate, and science on GMO tho. There's been many instances of scientists showing problems in the way GMO were tested and disagreeing with the result of some study, or pointing out the impure relationship between scientist and big GMO firm such as mosanto, while there is a huge 99% consensus on climate change. Whatever, labelling GMO food has nothing to do with science. Why the consumer should not be able to tell where and how its food has been made ?
there's really not much difference. if anything GMO is actually long term empirically tested and lab tested to be safe.
obviously each product is different and that is why before a particular crop is approved it requires individual testing, but there's literally no reason to form a GMO phobia besides "genetics is unnatural" which is just silliness.
the monsanto stuff is also an unfair characterisation of the entire genetic engineering technology. their market share is not that dominant and competitors like dupont are rising. it stands to reason that in the infancy stage of a technology the first guy there will have a large advantage, then that edge fades as the tech matures and more competition comes up. this is true for basically every goods market.
also the heavy regulatory cost on GE stuff make the cost of entrance high. if you don't want monsanto dominating the technology mebbe loosen up on the disproportional regulation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2014 10:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Also I'd like to see evidence for the claim that Eurpean food is " more expensive, less diverse and less environmentally efficient."
http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/planting-the.html
there's a section on economic impact, but generally speaking GMO reduce pesticide use and lower cost through higher yield and more climate tolerance. specifically for the EU, reliance on imports raise price of transportation and pesticides.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 20 2014 12:59 IgnE wrote: Show nested quote +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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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"
does pig dna have split hooves? or rather, does pig orange have split hooves?
if not then it's kosher.
if you manage to find a pig orange with split hooves, then that oranpig is unclean.
|
On October 20 2014 20:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the GMO debate is funny to me because it turns everyone schizophrenic. Free market advocates who always argue that the informed consumer will make good choices want to hide product information because they think the consumer will then make wrong consumer choices based on that information. More market-critical voices who don't really believe that the consumer makes good informed choices in general, rather that consumption is wayy inflated because advertisement (in whatever form) makes people believe they need products they have little utility for which is bad because over-consumption is a problem, now insist that this branding will enable the consumer to make more informed choices. (Even if branding products GMO is something we should realize is basically gonna function as a possibly unjust anti-advertisement.)
Not fully the case here as I see even leftist-ish posters argue against branding, which is consistent, but I don't understand how belief in the intelligent informed consumer is consistent with a position of not wanting GMO foods labelled as such?
People are capable of making informed choices and still being incorrect, through misrepresentation and frauds for example. So it gets to the heart of the debate about GMO labeling if it is relevant and helpful to consumers who want to make food choices in the interest of safety and health. It is not mandatory in the US because the scientific consensus is that it is not relevant, a genetically modified tomato is still a tomato for all intents and purposes of food, without any substantial change in the makeup of it that requires safety checks above and beyond what organic or non-GM tomatoes receive.
As you mention yourself, GMO labeling is one step towards possibly creating a misleading panic about the safety of GMO foods merely to deter people away from buying them. When other people are talking about splicing pigs with produce, that's all you need to know about how far this can jump the shark.
|
Norway28804 Posts
My point though is that normally, consumption is influenced in the opposite manner - artificially inflated through semi-lies about how good a product is for us. 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you know the answer already tho. they are always schizo. seeing past the power based plays of actual companies and only relying on this apriori abstraction of rational agent market interactions is the hallmark of a true believer.
|
On October 20 2014 18:37 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 18:11 Roe wrote:What would happen to me if I sent a letter to one of you saying I was a government agency that didn't exist and started harassing you at your home, demanding your property? The second part of that article is pretty disgraceful: 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.
"There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready."
The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him.
"It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning,"
Monsanto won its case against Parr, but the company, which won't comment on specific cases, has stopped its legal action against the Runyons.
Depends on what you were asking for. It's interesting to bring up Parr's case since he lost the case, meaning a jury found that he was indeed helping farmers violate the patent.
Well that's not how american justice works. They would not have verified the truth of the matter, but whether it were plausible beyond a reasonable doubt. We also don't know the details of it, that's to say nothing of whether he could realistically, practically, be held accountable for such a thing. What's interesting is they've stopped action against the Runyons: that seems to indicate to me that they're pulling back a bit, being more careful, and will push out some PR repair.
Regardless of what I were to ask for, in general I wonder if I could personally get away with the same things a corp. gets away with due to limited liability and such.
|
On October 20 2014 23:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 18:37 coverpunch wrote:On October 20 2014 18:11 Roe wrote:What would happen to me if I sent a letter to one of you saying I was a government agency that didn't exist and started harassing you at your home, demanding your property? The second part of that article is pretty disgraceful: 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.
"There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready."
The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him.
"It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning,"
Monsanto won its case against Parr, but the company, which won't comment on specific cases, has stopped its legal action against the Runyons.
Depends on what you were asking for. It's interesting to bring up Parr's case since he lost the case, meaning a jury found that he was indeed helping farmers violate the patent. Well that's not how american justice works. They would not have verified the truth of the matter, but whether it were plausible beyond a reasonable doubt. We also don't know the details of it, that's to say nothing of whether he could realistically, practically, be held accountable for such a thing. What's interesting is they've stopped action against the Runyons: that seems to indicate to me that they're pulling back a bit, being more careful, and will push out some PR repair. Regardless of what I were to ask for, in general I wonder if I could personally get away with the same things a corp. gets away with due to limited liability and such.
This was a civil case, not criminal, so the bar for evidence is necessarily much lower. But it appears that Parr lost an injunction hearing so only the judge decided. But it was fairly open and shut, Parr was active in selling Monsanto seeds and encouraging others to plant them. His defense wasn't to deny doing it but to say that since he didn't do the actual planting, he didn't violate Monsanto's patent, which is ridiculous.
As for the Runyans, the suit could be dropped for a lot of reasons. Maybe they tested and they really didn't do it. Maybe the bad PR did scare the company from looking too much like a bully.
But in terms of accessing public records of other people or intimidating people by pretending to be more important than you are, yeah, you could get away with a lot. Monsanto employees can get away with more because they have a bigger name behind them and the resources to afford excellent and aggressive lawyers who can tell them where the lines are and where there is flex. If you're just some boner flashing a fake badge, you're more likely to cross the wrong line or piss off the wrong person.
|
On October 20 2014 20:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the GMO debate is funny to me because it turns everyone schizophrenic. Free market advocates who always argue that the informed consumer will make good choices want to hide product information because they think the consumer will then make wrong consumer choices based on that information. More market-critical voices who don't really believe that the consumer makes good informed choices in general, rather that consumption is wayy inflated because advertisement (in whatever form) makes people believe they need products they have little utility for which is bad because over-consumption is a problem, now insist that this branding will enable the consumer to make more informed choices. (Even if branding products GMO is something we should realize is basically gonna function as a possibly unjust anti-advertisement.)
Not fully the case here as I see even leftist-ish posters argue against branding, which is consistent, but I don't understand how belief in the intelligent informed consumer is consistent with a position of not wanting GMO foods labelled as such?
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.
Also, can you imagine if we required doctors to list out the chemical compounds in vaccines to adults before using them? That's more information, but people can't process that information correctly and it will inherently lead to fewer people being vaccinated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
