US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1356

On October 21 2014 11:38 ZeaL. wrote:


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.

On October 21 2014 11:38 ZeaL. wrote:


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.

In the United States, 21 cities have restricted sharing food with homeless people through legislation or community pressure since January 2013, and about 10 other cities are in the process of doing so, the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) said in a report released Monday.

“One of the most narrow-minded ideas when it comes to homelessness and food-sharing is that sharing food with people in need enables them to remain homeless,” the report said.

The report was released a day before Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was set to vote “on the city’s third ordinance this year that will target the life-sustaining activities of people experiencing homelessness,” the NCH said in a news release.

“If the biggest crimes we had to worry about in this country were sitting, sleeping (in public places) and eating and sharing food, we would be in a freaking good state,” said Paul Boden, director of Western Regional Advocacy Project, the organization that launched the Homeless Bill of Rights campaign, an ongoing movement to introduce legislation in California and Oregon to "overturn local laws targeted to remove people from public space."

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.

That's one of the main arguments presented by the anti-labeling campaigns. The other is the potential increase in production costs. That's the concern of former Washington state agriculture director and full-time farmer Dan Newhouse. As a farmer who grows some GMO and some non-GMO, he says it's going to be hard work keeping them separate. He imagines moving a harvester from a field of one kind of corn to the other.

"I'd have to be able to clean that harvester so well, that there's not one kernel of [GMO] corn on that machine," Newhouse says. "So I would not be able to guarantee that there's no commingling."

Opponents of mandatory labeling say the extra effort would increase the price of food by an average of $450 a year, for a family of four. While an independent study by the Washington State Academy of Sciences agreed that labeling would come with a cost, it noted that it's impossible to calculate how much that cost would be.

On October 21 2014 12:59 IgnE wrote:
So costs are just a bogeyman then.

On October 21 2014 13:20 IgnE wrote:
That's stupid. The FDA has nothing to do with a democratic vote on whether to label foods.

On October 21 2014 13:29 IgnE wrote:
No, those are two overlapping regimes. If people voted to prominently label all foods with added sugar then that also would be a valid democratic measure. The advocates just want to inform the consumers; the consumers then can choose how they will. The FDA has its own procedures that are suited for different purposes. There's nothing contradictory about having both.

So firstly the vote is not about whether the FDA is being "overruled." Secondly, even if it were, that would be a valid exercise of democratic power.

On October 21 2014 14:59 Danglars wrote:
So it's okay to stand against scientists/experts if you can call it democratic process and impute motives to the advocates -- your special interest groups that fight on the side of the angels. Hmm, I wonder if you flinch when suddenly its the scientists/experts you want to hold the day, damn the democratic process because you don't agree with the motives.

On October 21 2014 11:52 Doublemint wrote:


It's a label. I can't stretch that enough. A stupid little info label. Yes it's not enough and by all accounts a flawed law/way to educate people, especially since it's probably more about patenting issues than health safety issues.

And still, by that logic we should abandon democracy altogether.
I have a proposal and would add something very special - forbidding "stupid" opinions. That will show all them stoopiders.

Americans abandoning the untouchable sanctity of FREEDOM. Now I've seen it all.

On October 21 2014 16:57 coverpunch wrote:

Hm, and you must be missing the part where activist groups are preparing for a labeled world where they can organize boycotts and protests, with the end goal of banning GM crops entirely. It's highly disingenuous for left-wingers to say they're doing this in the interest of consumer habits, when they're literally opposed to consumerism. You're illustrating it yourself when you say you support labels even as you admit they're not informative and not relevant to food safety.

EDIT: My personal opinion is if you can prove that GMO crops pose a serious health risk to consumers, then I'd be all for labeling or more rigorous safety regulations. Which is what happens with allergens and with animal hormones. But when the arguments are either hypotheticals about splicing pigs with oranges or talking about Monsanto as a litigious company, I don't think there's any serious substance to it.

On October 21 2014 15:35 IgnE wrote:
Hmmm I wonder if you can tell the difference between thinking the electorate are idiots and thinking the electorate shouldn't be able to decide anything. People can be idiots and still have the right to decide they want to be idiots.

It's honestly confusing what you people are arguing. This isn't about standing against anything. This isn't about whether GMO people are right or wrong. This isn't a referendum on whether the public is going to "overrule" the scientists. If there's a ballot initiative and the people decide they want to do something, they should be able to do it.