|
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 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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.
One way or another - there is a huge information gap and insecurity among consumers, they crave for information. Not giving it to them won't fix anything. Well, for food producers it would solve answering inconvenient questions or even addressing the issues properly.
ABCpoll from the link earlier
|
On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote: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. 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
So what? Consumer goodwill is not rational. It's emotional. Who cares if uninformed people make bad decisions? Is this a democracy or is it not? Saying, "no, you idiots wouldn't know what to do with the information if we told you" doesn't help.
|
On October 21 2014 09:59 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 09:35 IgnE wrote: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. 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
implying that you have all the right reasons for other people's decision making and think it's better for you to decide what other people buy by withholding information from them?
|
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/?TID SM_FB
Another article on top of the heap of evidence that the American Dream is dead, meritocracy is a farce, and inequality is unjust.
|
So is the entire purpose of GMO labeling just to build consumer ill-will towards the entities you dislike? Wielding the public's ignorance as a weapon against what you deem bad?
And I don't have the right reasons to choose or not choose GM foods. I have knowledge based on my background in biology but I acknowledge that it is not a black and white situation. Though I have issues with the FDA's handling of drugs I would trust the USDA/FDA to be a final arbiter in deciding this issue.
|
No, it's about enabling people to make informed decisions. Actually 93% 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.
|
It seems really silly to be arguing about how labeling whether a product is GM or not based on how it manipulates the customer.
The entire store and package is designed to manipulate the customer into buying things they don't want/need. And everyone's concern is about one (maybe misleading) fact being mixed in with all that marketing BS and that potentially negating a tiny fraction of that intentional pro-purchase manipulation and somehow impacting their bottom lines.
Just blows my mind... All this concern for the corporate bottom line but no complaints about the rest of the package which is designed to manipulate/deceive the customer.
Just seems that for those who's biggest concern about GM food and farming is that labeling the food could have non-reason/logic based negative outcomes for corporate bottom lines or the banning of GM food are just on a different planet.
|
Highly interesting read on the whole GMO labelling fight going on.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/genetically-modified-food
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.
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.
//edit:
On October 21 2014 07:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 02:37 DoubleReed wrote: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. 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?
You might want to rethink, to stay in your jargon, what a few "loons" want and what the people want.
ABCpoll from the link earlier
I urge you to get some more polls. I looked at many, it's basically the same picture.
|
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-foodShow nested quote + 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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
I'm Shocked... Shocked, to find out a few moneyed interests outweigh the desire of the people....
|
93%?
Wow. That's absurd. I can't even imagine that much consensus on anything. Fuck, I don't think there's that much consensus on interracial marriage.
But yea, I think what's really being fought here is democracy vs oligarchy. That's why you see this weird shift in "the left" not backing science while "the right" suddenly backing science. In that sense it should be pretty easy for the right-sided to understand that, because both sides are highly frustrated with moneyed interests dominating our debate and politics.
|
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.
Source
|
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.
Giving people a single piece of information out of context isn't the same as making them informed. If there was law that required packaging to include a label saying "WARNING - THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDED (HDMO): USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" for everything that includes water, it certainly wouldn't allow people to make more informed choices.
That being said, I don't really care whether GMOs are labeled or not. The debate is just about which of two corporate interests will end up profiting more.
|
On October 21 2014 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +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. Source
lol is this in response to Apple no longer keeping encryption keys?
Speaking of the FBI, apparently they're probably lying about how they caught the Dread Pirate Roberts:
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.
Informed decisions? Just go click your link and read the comments. Without the background knowledge to interpret a statement, that statement is worthless. How many people can actually read a nutrition label or understand an ingredient list? And you want them to judge the "healthiness" of a type of biotechnology?
If the goal truly was to get people to eat better or help the environment we wouldn't be having this discussion. This vote is just an ideological battle for the scientifically illiterate flailing against the corporate machine.
For the record, I support GM labeling. I just think the pro-labeling arguments in this thread are ridiculous.
|
On October 21 2014 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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 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. 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. I'm Shocked... Shocked, to find out a few moneyed interests outweigh the desire of the people....
I don't know. A reasonable person might say that that is exactly what you would expect when the public is educated on the relative safety of GMOs.
|
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.
Then use the internet. A family member of mine has to eat certain foods (or foods processed certain ways- intolerances and the like are such pains) for legitimate health issues, but somehow she manages to find out what she needs just fine.
Again, those companies that do things "organically" or are non-GMO love to advertise that fact. So let them advertise it willingly, and if someone wants to check up on their favorite brand of potentially GMO food, then they can do so. Just be safe and assume that if it doesn't say "NO GMO!!" then it probably is GM.
|
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.
Does that not make you even the slightest bit uncomfortable? That policy concerning things the majority of the population does not understand is up for popular vote?
I guess if 80% of our population doesn't "believe in" vaccines and global warming, well fuck all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
