|
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 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote: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.
What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
who is this 'we' here? you guys should try to find a single food security regulatory agency in agreement with your labeling views. and nop, europe is not it. i've already posted the links and studies so if your army can't be bothered to read and engage then what's the point.
|
I find it funny that someone alleged that oneofthem is too "emotionally invested" in the topic; there are few posters as unemotional lol.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw all this talk about monsanto, their market share has been falling, as expected. dupont is larger than them in corn and soy. there's a lot of university based research on agricultural GM, and research to industry is nothing evil. it is just the way certain science is done.
|
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote: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. What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
|
My concern is not how research is done. It's how laws are written.
|
The two aren't really divisible in an attenuated democracy; consulting sources of authority based in research are how people go about making informed civic choices in regards to matters outside lay-understanding.
|
I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture".
The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research.
|
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
Besides the fact that in my last post I just listed two good reasons why one might be sceptical about uncritical approach to the whole field of genetically modified food, labeling gm-food is not misinformation, because that's actually what it is. What you are talking about is misjudgement, and misjudging stuff is actually something people in democratic countries are allowed to do.
|
On October 22 2014 03:29 farvacola wrote:
The two aren't really divisible in an attenuated democracy; consulting sources of authority based in research are how people go about making informed civic choices in regards to matters outside lay-understanding.
They're related, sure. But they're completely at odds in this respect. In this case, the "sources of authority" is determined by cash.
There's no civic choices being made by the population at all in this case. If you think there is then you're being naïve.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 03:33 WhiteDog wrote:
I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture".
The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research.
it is not actually overstated, just not developed. onerous regulation in the U.S. leads to only a few industrial size farming strains, because approving one single strain is very costly. a lot of things can be done via GE to enhance a crop, including adding more climate/soil degradation resistance.
you are also not accountig for all the exported pesticide and resource use that gm-banning regions are placing on their source countries.
it is a strategic level technology which is why china and rusrus are being all protectionist about it.
in an increasingly climate and arable land challenged world, GE crop is indispensable.
current gmo adoption is pretty good for developing countries, but the rich world being organic snobs also carries cost for the whole world. export reliant, gmo banning places are just exporting inefficient and environmentally burdensome farming elsewhere.
|
On October 22 2014 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:29 farvacola wrote:
The two aren't really divisible in an attenuated democracy; consulting sources of authority based in research are how people go about making informed civic choices in regards to matters outside lay-understanding. They're related, sure. But they're completely at odds in this respect. In this case, the "sources of authority" is determined by cash. There's no civic choices being made by the population at all in this case. If you think there is then you're being naïve.
And I can state that those who believe that the regulatory process behind establishing labeling mandates is a simple matter of popular appeal and the democratic process are naive as well, but a compelling argument that does not make.
|
On October 22 2014 03:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:38 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 03:29 farvacola wrote:
The two aren't really divisible in an attenuated democracy; consulting sources of authority based in research are how people go about making informed civic choices in regards to matters outside lay-understanding. They're related, sure. But they're completely at odds in this respect. In this case, the "sources of authority" is determined by cash. There's no civic choices being made by the population at all in this case. If you think there is then you're being naïve. And I can state that those who believe that the regulatory process behind establishing labeling mandates is a simple matter of popular appeal and the democratic process are naive as well, but a compelling argument that does not make.
Well gee don't you think the democratic process should at least be involved?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is literally the lol we have more people you dumb argument
|
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that.
|
On October 22 2014 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know. Besides the fact that in my last post I just listed two good reasons why one might be sceptical about uncritical approach to the whole field of genetically modified food, labeling gm-food is not misinformation, because that's actually what it is. What you are talking about is misjudgement, and misjudging stuff is actually something people in democratic countries are allowed to do.
It is about misinformation because those supporting the labeling often use misinformation to garner support. The labels themselves can be a source of misinformation too. As an example, sugar derived from GM sugar beets has not GM material in it, yet, since it came from a GM crop it would, in at least some laws, be labeled as GM. So the label would imply that you are putting things in your mouth that have been GM, but it may not actually have GM material in it.
As for misjudgment, yes democracies are allowed to make bad decisions but --- wtf really? How the fuck is that even an argument? "Sure GM labeling is stupid, but it sure is popular!"
|
On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that.
If a corporation convinces congress that 2+2=4 you should thank them for the math lesson.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that.
or maybe the science is simple and there is no danger??? i mean wow
|
You're overlooking the fact that industrial monoculture CREATES the problems that you think GMO is going to magically solve. Otherwise you're just fighting an arms race against food-web flattening and ecological degradation which we're not going to win.
we can't engineer an ecology, and trying to do so is hubristic madness. small-scale, localized agriculture is what we need, not Progress
On October 22 2014 04:01 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. or maybe the science is simple and there is no danger??? i mean wow
there's absolutely nothing simple about ecology, you are living in a technocratic fantasy
|
On October 22 2014 04:01 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 03:51 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying this is yet another example of our government being bought and paid for. For some reason, your "side" seems reluctant to admit that. or maybe the science is simple and there is no danger??? i mean wow
which when it comes to genetically modifying living organisms is simply a very stupid and factually wrong statement.
On October 22 2014 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for misjudgment, yes democracies are allowed to make bad decisions but --- wtf really? How the fuck is that even an argument? "Sure GM labeling is stupid, but it sure is popular!"
This is the America's right-wing argumentation for virtually anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
