EPTThe issue itself doesn't even matter very much. If people want more information about their food sources who cares? All we have are some uncorroborated reports by GMO advocates who advance fuzzy figures about unknowable costs. Labeling costs are negligible in and of themselves, no one can know the future, there is a difference between GMO and non-GMO, even if its small to negligible, and the overwhelming majority of the voting public wants a label on the stuff its consuming. So who cares? Why get up in arms about Monsanto's profits? Boycotts and consumer choice are part of the market mechanism.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1357
| 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. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
The issue itself doesn't even matter very much. If people want more information about their food sources who cares? All we have are some uncorroborated reports by GMO advocates who advance fuzzy figures about unknowable costs. Labeling costs are negligible in and of themselves, no one can know the future, there is a difference between GMO and non-GMO, even if its small to negligible, and the overwhelming majority of the voting public wants a label on the stuff its consuming. So who cares? Why get up in arms about Monsanto's profits? Boycotts and consumer choice are part of the market mechanism. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 21 2014 17:15 IgnE wrote: Boycotts and protests are consumer choices. It's almost like you don't get it. But boycotts and protests based on misleading and irrelevant information is a bad choice. More choice is generally more preferable, but in this case it seems quite clearly geared towards steering. The part you don't seem to get is the idea that a person can have more information and make worse decisions, which is what happens when they get bad information. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 21 2014 18:50 coverpunch wrote: But boycotts and protests based on misleading and irrelevant information is a bad choice. More choice is generally more preferable, but in this case it seems quite clearly geared towards steering. The part you don't seem to get is the idea that a person can have more information and make worse decisions, which is what happens when they get bad information. You realize that line makes no sense right? Is the more information the bad information? Are they two different informations, one being just more and at least one other being bad? Telling people something is GMO isn't "bad" information. It's just a matter of fact. If you are talking about some other information, that's not on the label, maybe you should take it up with that information. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
And that's also valid for some of the idiotic argument against intelligent design obviously, hello Dawkins. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i can say there is an info gap on the amount of arbitrary N substance in any product but this does not become a problem until the substance poses tangible risk. i could have a phobia for said N but that is just me being misinformed. the consumers are not children whose every crying whim has to be satisfied or riot, at least responsible government should not behave like so. yes, corporations are owned by people and there are noncorporate players. this corporate hate is self destructive if you begin to make utterly ridiculous positions. On October 21 2014 12:59 IgnE wrote: So costs are just a bogeyman then. costs are known though. based on experience from japan and europe gm crops will be phased out of the market by retailer choice. the amount of misinformation spread by organic warriors has real consequences. at any rate, since unknown = nonexistent we can also conclude gmo is perfectly safe since unknown danger = nada. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2014 20:10 corumjhaelen wrote: I can't type because I don't have a right hand, but for Christ's sake, thinking people are idiots and can't make a choice for themselves is exactly what is making them that way. Trust them, and really give them power, democracy and not a parody of it when it suits you. And that's also valid for some of the idiotic argument against intelligent design obviously, hello Dawkins. since when is opposing a particular popular trend based on the fact that it is irrational and misinformed a ground for saying all teh ppl are dumb? do i get to conclude from this particular silly post that you are always an idiot? of course not! the fact of this case is that the concerns behind labeling are unsubstantiated and that is that. you cant leave the factual lay of the land out or you become the same sort of mushy thinking apriorists like austrians | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
Other people disagreeing with you is not necessarily because they are irrational or misinformed or both. Calling things by their name and making that visible for everyone can't mean the end of rational thinking even if for whatever reason you tend to think so. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not a disagreement with me btw, the science on gmo is clear. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 21 2014 21:27 oneofthem wrote: i didn't call you names. i was testing your ability to read subtext since the subtext on gmo labeling seems completely lost. it's not a disagreement with me btw, the science on gmo is clear. Strangely enough, we are not arguing the science. We are arguing about a _label_ and how it might destroy common sense/cause a panic/bring stupid people into power. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On October 21 2014 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No one is really sure how much the labeling would cost, but it has the potential to affect the entire supply chain. An example: Link Side note - Vermont's GMO labeling law includes a fund for anticipated legal defenses (source). so much bullshit going on with this. Opponents of mandatory labeling say the extra effort would increase the price of food by an average of $450 a year Like wth? there are already labels on food that say what the ingredients are,how much calories and sugar and what not. It realy cost nada to add the gmo or non gmo stamp to that as well. Less choise for the consumers because they wont buy gmo food and the shops will take them off the shelves? Well if people don't buy them then the demand is not there so nothing is lost. And if enough people would buy it,then a shop that sells them will prosper,isnt that how capitalism works? The way they handle this is so terrible,all this only makes people more suspicious about gmo and more averse to it. If they would just be open about it it would be accepted much quicker. "based on experience from japan and europe gm crops will be phased out of the market by retailer choice" yup retailers choise, wich in the end is the choise of the public. Isnt that just perfect and how capitalism Is supposed to work? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Obviously many here say that the population cannot be trusted with decisions and should fall to whim of the corporate oligarchy. To those people I ask two things: Do you consider yourself part of the elite, and why should the public be trusted with any policy decision at all? | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
The same kind of thing is happening here. GMOs are also a problem with very few tangible victims and it is regarded by opponents as an effort to tarnish the reputation of certain food companies. It is interesting to reiterate the sentiment from this: You will find people are not against Voter ID in principle. They are against the way it is being used. As a method to influence voting demographs. It's possible to argue you're more okay with manipulating consumers than voters, but let's please stop spitting on cupcakes and calling it frosting by insisting this is in the interest of "educating" anyone. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Seems obvious to me. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 21 2014 20:29 oneofthem wrote: costs are known though. based on experience from japan and europe gm crops will be phased out of the market by retailer choice. the amount of misinformation spread by organic warriors has real consequences. at any rate, since unknown = nonexistent we can also conclude gmo is perfectly safe since unknown danger = nada. I would point out that both Japan and Europe block GM crops in part as a fairly blatant attempt to block imports of foreign crops. Trade talks with the US in the TPP and TTIP have stalled out, with food being a major issue (although there are plenty of other major issues to dislike about both deals). | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 21 2014 22:26 DoubleReed wrote: Voter ID is a civil rights issue and therefore should not be at the whim of the majoritarian public (as it's basically voting to prevent others from voting). Labeling GMO foods is not a civil rights issue. It should be at the whim of the public. Seems obvious to me. Actually, we'll see about that. Vermont's GMO labeling laws are in federal court. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 21 2014 22:30 coverpunch wrote: Actually, we'll see about that. Vermont's GMO labeling laws are in federal court. Well I'm not necessarily saying how the law is, I'm also saying how the law should be. For instance, I don't agree with unlimited campaign spending by corporations even though that's comically under the guise of "civil rights." | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 21 2014 22:26 coverpunch wrote: I would point out that both Japan and Europe block GM crops in part as a fairly blatant attempt to block imports of foreign crops. Trade talks with the US in the TPP and TTIP have stalled out, with food being a major issue (although there are plenty of other major issues to dislike about both deals). And why should we change our perfectly fine crops for GMO ones? Dealing with someone is not a one way street. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 21 2014 22:43 Doublemint wrote: And why should we change our perfectly fine crops for GMO ones? Dealing with someone is not a one way street. Because you're doing it to stifle competition, not because of any legitimate or sincere health issues. And since we care so much about consumers, you should note that they're the ones who are hurt most by artificially premiums on food since they do not have the option of buying crops from the US and other countries, labeled or otherwise. | ||
| ||
