US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1355

On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote:


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.

On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote:


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.

On October 21 2014 09:59 ZeaL. wrote:



I'm a libby lib who shops at farmer's markets and I think this argument is appalling. If your goals are to get people educated about food sourcing then educate people about food sourcing. If you're concerned about the ecological impacts of GM, why not go for regulations involving herbicide usage? If you're concerned about the health affects of GM, why not try to pass laws regarding FDA approval before marketing? Let people who actually know what they're talking about make the decisions, not the barely science literate end users.

The fact of the matter is I would wager less than 5% of the populace truly understands the impact of GM. How can we consider labeling as helping the informed consumer when there are simply very few informed consumers? All this will do is allow uninformed people to make uninformed decisions. Will this actually educate anyone about food sourcing? No, they'll either not give a shit or they'll give a shit for the wrong reasons and move on with their lives. Hey, who cares that this wheat was doused in herbicides and pesticides which flowed into the nearby water supply, I'll buy it cause its NON-GMOOO WHOO

On October 21 2014 09:59 ZeaL. wrote:



I'm a libby lib who shops at farmer's markets and I think this argument is appalling. If your goals are to get people educated about food sourcing then educate people about food sourcing. If you're concerned about the ecological impacts of GM, why not go for regulations involving herbicide usage? If you're concerned about the health affects of GM, why not try to pass laws regarding FDA approval before marketing? Let people who actually know what they're talking about make the decisions, not the barely science literate end users.

The fact of the matter is I would wager less than 5% of the populace truly understands the impact of GM. How can we consider labeling as helping the informed consumer when there are simply very few informed consumers? All this will do is allow uninformed people to make uninformed decisions. Will this actually educate anyone about food sourcing? No, they'll either not give a shit or they'll give a shit for the wrong reasons and move on with their lives. Hey, who cares that this wheat was doused in herbicides and pesticides which flowed into the nearby water supply, I'll buy it cause its NON-GMOOO WHOO

Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. You can see that in the above chart, based on a new paper from Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill, presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston's annual conference, which is underway.

Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

The campaign to stop compulsory labelling of genetically modified (GM) food in Washington broke state records for fund-raising. The campaign to force labelling must have come close to breaking state records for squandering poll leads. In September 66% of Washington's voters said they intended to vote for Initiative 522, which would have placed a conspicuous label on most foods containing GM ingredients sold in retail outlets. Final results are not yet in (and the "yes" campaign has not conceded), but the measure appears to have lost by about ten percentage points.

Those who decry the influence of money in politics will find a lot to chew over here. Proponents of the measure could stake a reasonable claim to have run a grassroots campaign. They raised about $8.4m; this included large donations from such august bodies as Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps of California, but also 13,000 individual contributions (median contribution: $25). In outraising them by about three to one, meanwhile, their opponents relied heavily on contributions from food companies and biotech firms (and broke campaign-finance laws, according to the state's attorney-general). They raised money from just four individuals.

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?

On October 21 2014 10:48 Doublemint wrote:
Highly interesting read on the whole GMO labelling fight going on.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/genetically-modified-food





So the initiatives/campaigns basically have the backing of the people in early polls, then the big boys come in and flood the TV stations via money from not even a handful of people/organisations with campaigns that blow the pro GMO label guys out of the water - both in quantity and quality.

Not gonna lie, that's quite hilarious. And sad.

FBI Director James Comey has launched a new “crypto war” by asking Congress to update a two-decade-old law to make sure officials can access information from people’s cellphones and other communication devices.

The call is expected to trigger a major Capitol Hill fight about whether or not tech companies need to give the government access to their users' data.

“It's going to be a tough fight for sure,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the Patriot Act’s original author, told The Hill in a statement.
He argues Apple and other companies are taking the privacy of consumers into their own hands because Congress has failed to pass legislation in response to public anger over the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

“While Director Comey says the pendulum has swung too far toward privacy and away from law enforcement, he fails to acknowledge that Congress has yet to pass any significant privacy reforms,” he added. “Because of this failure, businesses have taken matters into their own hands to protect their consumers and their bottom lines.”


“If this becomes the norm, I suggest to you that homicide cases could be stalled, suspects walked free, child exploitation not discovered and prosecuted,” he said last week.

Comey is asking that Congress update the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a 1994 law that required telephone companies to make it possible for federal officials to wiretap their users' phone calls.

Many new mobile applications and other modern devices aren’t included under the law, however, making it difficult if not impossible for police to get a suspect’s records — even with a warrant.

Forcing companies to put in a “backdoor” to give officials access would also open them up to hackers in China and Russia, opponents claim, as well as violate Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy.

Comey claimed the FBI was not looking for a “backdoor” into people’s devices.

“We want to use the front door with clarity and transparency,” he said.

But for critics, that’s a distinction without a difference.

On October 21 2014 10:40 Nyxisto wrote:
No, it's about enabling people to make informed decisions. Actually 96% of the American population seem to support gm-food labeling (Source). I guess so much consensus is pretty rare in the US and probably includes a few scientists as well.

Many in the Internet community have officially called baloney [that's a technical term] on the government’s claims, and these latest apparently contradictory revelations from the government are likely to fuel speculation that the government is trying to explain away some not-so-by-the-book investigative methods.

“I find it surprising that when given the chance to provide a cogent, on-the record explanation for how they discovered the server, they instead produced a statement that has been shown inconsistent with reality, and that they knew would be inconsistent with reality,” Weaver said. “”Let me tell you, those tin foil hats are looking more and more fashionable each day.”

On October 21 2014 10:40 Nyxisto wrote:
No, it's about enabling people to make informed decisions. Actually 96% of the American population seem to support gm-food labeling (Source). I guess so much consensus is pretty rare in the US and probably includes a few scientists as well.

On October 21 2014 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm Shocked... Shocked, to find out a few moneyed interests outweigh the desire of the people....

On October 21 2014 11:28 Nyxisto wrote:
This isn't even about if their arguments make sense or not. Religious people have tons of laws, traditions and customs that are protected and non of them are supported by any kind of evidence. If 93% of the population want to know if their food stems from genetically modified plants they have the right to do so.

On October 21 2014 11:28 Nyxisto wrote:
This isn't even about if their arguments make sense or not. Religious people have tons of laws, traditions and customs that are protected and non of them are supported by any kind of evidence. If 93% of the population want to know if their food stems from genetically modified plants they have the right to do so.