|
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 22:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 22:43 Doublemint wrote:On October 21 2014 22:26 coverpunch wrote:On October 21 2014 20:29 oneofthem wrote: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. 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. 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.
Consumers, although hurt the most, are happy with the way things are around here, buying regional and organic food is quite popular. Thanks for your concern though.
|
On October 21 2014 18:25 IgnE wrote:
Most of the time we aren't talking about democratic ballot initiatives are we, Danglars? On the contrary, it's entirely about the form of a ballot initiative. If the governor was proposing to unilaterally impose GMO labeling on products that would be another thing altogether. Your reductionist absurdities seem incapable of nuance, but if you can think of a directly analogous situation bring it up instead of posting some bullshit about "my own prior stands" described as vaguely as possible.
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. It doesn't matter very much to you, we've gotten it. The pattern appears to be democratic process is fine on stuff you assert doesn't matter.
On ballot initiatives, I assume Prop 8 hasn't fallen too far into the past to be entirely forgotten, has it? Or maybe I've got the faulty memory and it had your full support.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me
|
Why do people keep equating civil rights to corporate profits? It's insulting and gross.
|
Better make haste rallying the troops, reaching poll numbers in the 90% of the general population ain't no easy feat.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
tell that to phd students working 12 hour lab days.
|
On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
|
On October 21 2014 21:55 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 12:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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. No one is really sure how much the labeling would cost, but it has the potential to affect the entire supply chain. An example: 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. LinkSide 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?
The real cost would come from changes in the supply chain - how food is produced, handled, tracked, shipped, etc. The cost isn't "cost of printing a label".
How do you put a "NO GMOs HERE" sticker on your product?
a) You need to know and care that a given supplier produces non-gmo food.
b) If you're buying through a market, the market now needs to now be divided between gmo and non-gmo.
c) If suppliers (both farmers and processors) produce gmo and non-gmo food, they need to ensure that there is no cross-contamination.
d) Transport companies need to ensure no cross-contamination. May make it harder to ship full truck / train loads.
Everything here (and there's much more) increases the cost of food.
As for consumer choice - you can already vote with your wallet. Buy organic. No GMOs in organic. Or you can buy food that is non-gmo certified. Just go here and find things you like.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote:
i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic? I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will. And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
|
On October 22 2014 00:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:As for consumer choice - you can already vote with your wallet. Buy organic. No GMOs in organic. Or you can buy food that is non-gmo certified. Just go here and find things you like.
Ingredient labelling is also mandatory isn't it? Would you like to get rid of that, too? Because I don't see the qualitative difference.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ingredient labeling advances the public's interest. gmo labeling does not.
|
In what way differ the two? Most people will arguably not know what 90% of the ingredients in their food even are, some people may not even buy something because it contains objectively non harmful ingredients. Why is that okay?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's mostly for the purpose of transparency of food composition, an important part of food security. GMO can also contribute to food security, and anti gmo cultists are threatening it.
with proper education there will be no desire to label a simple lab process. but given the common phobia, which is a consideration of public policy, labeling is highly counterproductive.
|
So when it comes to ingredients "transparency of food composition" is suddenly a valid argument, but when it comes to the origins of your food it is not?
You do notice that labelling gm-food just means that you tell people that it is gm-food right? It is not supposed to be a "don't touch this it's dangerous!11" label. There is no misinformation in giving someone factually true information. And again, 93% of the American population support mandatory labelling. That is not some kind of cult movement, it's pretty much everybody.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is because ingredient label is not targeted at any particular ingredient, it is a process of recordkeeping and monitoring of foodmaking processes and whatnot. for a specific ingredient/process label some sort of public interest has to be gained by notifying the public of GMO. there is none.
|
"it is a process of recordkeeping and monitoring of foodmaking processes and whatnot." That is exactly what a label for gm food would be , too! It gives a person additional information about where their food comes from and who was involved in its production without needing to do much research.
And there are a lot of objective reasons why gm-labelling would be of the public interest. Maybe some people do not want to buy products that involve companies like Monsanto, because they're concerned about their business practises. Maybe people are worried that the ecological impact of such a young technology is not yet understood completely. (which is a valid point as there simply are no long term studies regarding the ecological impact of gm food).
There are a lot of points to be made completely apart from health factors that people might be worried about.
|
Markets working a bit better is a public interest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol no it would make markets work worse.
fact of the matter is there is a lot of market disruption to come with this labeling stuff and it is not in a direction of any benefit whatsoever. it's worse than the vaccination thing because it does retard the adoption of Genetic Engineering technology. with the market entrance made higher, smaller players will be far less competitive.
|
You mean like Mom & Pop genetic engineers?
|
Kind of a weird argument honestly. By that argument, Monsanto would be pushing for labeling. That's clearly not the case because moneyed interests are way more powerful than public opinion on this. You really think Monsanto and such haven't considered that angle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
