| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 01:53 Gorsameth wrote: 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. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
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. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
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). | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 20 2014 22:02 oneofthem wrote: 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. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
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: Source Quite 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 02:37 DoubleReed wrote: 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? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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 | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we've gone a couple pages and this is the residue, the same right to know argument? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8751 Posts
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8751 Posts
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8751 Posts
On October 21 2014 08:16 oneofthem wrote: that'd be for the best. I am heartbroken. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 21 2014 07:11 oneofthem wrote: 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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War firebathero Dota 2 2512actioN  126sorry 69Mong 67NaDa 19Oya187  17Shinee 13Noble 12ajuk12(nOOB) 8Bale 7Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
GSL
Cure vs sOs
SHIN vs ByuN
Replay Cast
GSL
Classic vs Solar
GuMiho vs Zoun
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs SHIN
Rogue vs Bunny
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
