|
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. |
On October 20 2014 22:35 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. 
But there are fights all the time about whether the claims on labels are inaccurate or misleading. Most of the time, people don't notice that cereal makers stop saying they contain "heart healthy" products and whatnot. It isn't schizophrenic.
|
On October 20 2014 23:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's a really shitty example. Why are you comparing food choices (something that people typically make decisions about based upon irrelevant shit like package color, minor blemishes that do not change the product quality, etc.) to something that saves lives? You people are acting like food purchasing decisions are made upon real, relevant information when it's more often than not made upon shit like package presentation, marketing buzzwords and unrealistic expectations of what food "should" look like.
I see a lot of talk about how important it is to not give "useless" information to a customer, based on the sentiment that if there's no proof it'll hurt you, it shouldn't be listed. So let's stop listing nontoxic and hypoallergenic ingredients. After all, if it's not harming you, why do you need to know, really? And it's giving an unfair advantage to those damn organic lobby groups. They can just label their lack of those ingredients. Np.
And a quick note, I don't really care about gmos, or the fright some people feel towards it, but what harm, if its irrelevant information (tons of which is on packages anyway) does it do? Hurt the bottom line of a company? Every consumer law does that, and consumers have a right to know what's going on in their food, irrelevant information or not, especially when the field is so unexplored. Perhaps we'll find more information in the future that shows it's harmful. Like we did with tobacco products and nicotine.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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.
|
Quite frankly, I don't think you can really have effective awareness without labeling. Generally, I'd say that the "economic impact" of labeling GMO foods is totally overblown and plays into corporate bullshit. Most people don't care.
I think people should be able to choose what they want even if for irrational reasons. If the people want to know then they have that right. By keeping it hidden just plays into conspiracy theories and oligarchal notions. It reeks of large corporations setting the regulations for themselves. Which frankly most people are tired of regardless of the specific issue.
|
Norway28902 Posts
additionally, couldn't it be the case that if people are suddenly made aware of how they have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for years without becoming sick, they become less hostile towards it?
|
On October 20 2014 20:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2014 19:54 WhiteDog wrote: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. [...] 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.
I personally don't mind GMOs but what is "unfair reasons" supposed to mean? If someone wants to avoid GMOs, or wants to avoid buying products which saw the involvement of Monsanto because they want to send a message against Monsanto's business practices, how is that "unfair"? What's "unfair" about avoiding types of food or boycotting companies whose business practices you're critical of?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 01:05 DoubleReed wrote:
Quite frankly, I don't think you can really have effective awareness without labeling. Generally, I'd say that the "economic impact" of labeling GMO foods is totally overblown and plays into corporate bullshit. Most people don't care.
I think people should be able to choose what they want even if for irrational reasons. If the people want to know then they have that right. By keeping it hidden just plays into conspiracy theories and oligarchal notions. It reeks of large corporations setting the regulations for themselves. Which frankly most people are tired of regardless of the specific issue.
well we have empirical evidence showing that labeling deters product to market even before consumers can make any choice, leading to effective ban of the technology.
http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf
it's beyond the pale to argue about the other stuff given that you are saying it is ok for certain irrational behavior to impose cost on others and prevent technological progress.
also, not labeling is not the same as "hidden" for obvious reasons
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 01:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
additionally, couldn't it be the case that if people are suddenly made aware of how they have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for years without becoming sick, they become less hostile towards it?
people already blame all sort of bullshit symptoms they have on GMOs like inflammation. also, consumer choices are amplified by retailer choices, so even if 20% of the people avoid GMO labeled products those products will be less likely to be stocked.
also organics can compete with GM crops by lowering cost, by means of externalizing the cost of pesticide and environmental impact to less regulated places, or using off the label chemicals on their own stuff. it's just completely irrational.
|
The last time I checked America is a democracy, and if people want to have their shit labelled, they deserve to have that done, especially if we're talking about a technology that is younger than most college students.
|
the stupid peasants are wrong (impeding progress) and are being exploited by 'wrong big business', that is clear, big whoop. ain't nobody got time for 'wrong big business'-qq from a 'right big business'-zealot.
would be more interesting to hear to what extent you think your opinion should trump your democracy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
are we really reducing democracy to simple "what the people want" here? really? a functional democratic government has to be able to respond to science and expertise, because these are fine grain features of knowledge flow in society.
|
Which not what people are talking about at all. Stop acting like this is about banning genetically modified food. This is just about giving the consumer the choice they want. If they don't want to buy gm food they should not be tricked into it. Europe has probably the worlds most stringent laws when it comes to gmo's. It has not lead to abolishment of the technology or research.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
labeling is a market intervention in the same vein but less severe than banning, the wto for instance recognizes it as such, as it regulates labeling requirements in the same way outright banning is regulated. the functional effect of labeling is unequal market presence.
this 'right to know' nonsense is just a badly formed argument based on unjustified sense of danger. without that there is no legitimate claim to know.
|
Vermont is a failed democracy: it's been shanghaied by the wrong coorporate interests.
|
On October 21 2014 01:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Which not what people are talking about at all. Stop acting like this is about banning genetically modified food. This is just about giving the consumer the choice they want. If they don't want to buy gm food they should not be tricked into it. Europe has probably the worlds most stringent laws when it comes to gmo's. It has not lead to abolishment of the technology or research.
Are you about to lecture us about how Europe is some beacon of success right now? Seriously?
|
On October 21 2014 01:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 01:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Which not what people are talking about at all. Stop acting like this is about banning genetically modified food. This is just about giving the consumer the choice they want. If they don't want to buy gm food they should not be tricked into it. Europe has probably the worlds most stringent laws when it comes to gmo's. It has not lead to abolishment of the technology or research. Are you about to lecture us about how Europe is some beacon of success right now? Seriously?
No, I'm just saying that strict regulations don't necessarily lead to abolishment of an industry or something like that. Are you trying to tell me that America's health and food system is the beacon of success? All I'm saying is that oneofthem is creating a false dilemma. You can have informed customers and technological progress. It's not like the scientists are fleeing the country because the soybeans now have an additional sticker.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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.
|
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...
|
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.
Why is that the case besides your opinion that it is the case? I'm all for GMO's, but if people want to know whether foods are modified or not, that should be up to them. If I make the claim that consumer desire is sufficient justification for a compulsory labeling law without need for a tangible risk, why is that not valid?
Knowledge is never a bad thing. It may look like it, like in this case where knowing a food is GMO may cause someone to avoid it even though that decision is not founded in science, but that is the right of the consumer. Going down the road of "you don't need to know X because you're better off not knowing," is dangerous and should be avoided. If you want to blame anyone, blame it on the failure of GMO branding to convey necessary information to consumers about how there is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modifying foods.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
