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 11:08 IgnE wrote: 1) can you provide a source discussing how much of the GM farming in other countries is extensive?
2) why should GM farming in other countries bear on a measure to label food in the US?
These charts are from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). I know nothing of the organization so I can't speak to the veracity of their numbers and I didn't look up the methodology, but I sort of doubt you were looking for a serious answer anyways.
As for 2), it matters because the US buys crops from other countries, including GM crops.
A planned EU/US trade deal should sweep away "non-scientific barriers" to US sales of many genetically modified crops and some chemically treated meats in Europe, the US agriculture secretary said on Tuesday (17 June).
The two sides aim to create the world's largest free-trade pact, whose advocates say it could boost their economies by $100 billion (€74bn) a year each.
But after a year of talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), agriculture is emerging as one of the most difficult areas.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said both sides should have the common goal of opening markets and eliminating "non-scientific barriers".
"Science is a common language ... We will be working towards making sure that whatever agreements are reached, they are consistent with sound science," he told a media briefing during a visit to Brussels...
Vilsack said it was not acceptable that it took four years or more for GM strains to gain access to European markets after winning clearance from the European Food Safety Authority. That compared with a US norm of about 18 months...
Vilsack said the US government was very concerned about suggestions that GM products posed a safety risk, which he said was not borne out by science.
Labelling, suggested by some in Europe, would not be a solution, he said. US labels, he said, typically concerned nutritional information or carried a specific warning, for example to alert those with a peanut allergy.
Insisting on a label indicating a foodstuff contained a GM product risked sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue, he said.
The US and EU are also squabbling about meat, with the EU opposed to imports of meat that is chemically washed or meat from animals taking hormone supplements. But those are more mundane, longer-term arguments.
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left?
I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations.
There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise.
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever.
Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this:
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
//edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway.
On October 22 2014 11:08 IgnE wrote: 1) can you provide a source discussing how much of the GM farming in other countries is extensive?
2) why should GM farming in other countries bear on a measure to label food in the US?
These charts are from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). I know nothing of the organization so I can't speak to the veracity of their numbers and I didn't look up the methodology, but I sort of doubt you were looking for a serious answer anyways.
As for 2), it matters because the US buys crops from other countries, including GM crops.
A planned EU/US trade deal should sweep away "non-scientific barriers" to US sales of many genetically modified crops and some chemically treated meats in Europe, the US agriculture secretary said on Tuesday (17 June).
The two sides aim to create the world's largest free-trade pact, whose advocates say it could boost their economies by $100 billion (€74bn) a year each.
But after a year of talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), agriculture is emerging as one of the most difficult areas.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said both sides should have the common goal of opening markets and eliminating "non-scientific barriers".
"Science is a common language ... We will be working towards making sure that whatever agreements are reached, they are consistent with sound science," he told a media briefing during a visit to Brussels...
Vilsack said it was not acceptable that it took four years or more for GM strains to gain access to European markets after winning clearance from the European Food Safety Authority. That compared with a US norm of about 18 months...
Vilsack said the US government was very concerned about suggestions that GM products posed a safety risk, which he said was not borne out by science.
Labelling, suggested by some in Europe, would not be a solution, he said. US labels, he said, typically concerned nutritional information or carried a specific warning, for example to alert those with a peanut allergy.
Insisting on a label indicating a foodstuff contained a GM product risked sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue, he said.
The US and EU are also squabbling about meat, with the EU opposed to imports of meat that is chemically washed or meat from animals taking hormone supplements. But those are more mundane, longer-term arguments.
Neither of your responses are really on target. I asked for extensive farming across the world, not just what percentage was biotech. The second has quotes that talk about selling GM not buying it for domestic distribution.
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise.
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever.
Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
On October 22 2014 11:08 IgnE wrote: 1) can you provide a source discussing how much of the GM farming in other countries is extensive?
2) why should GM farming in other countries bear on a measure to label food in the US?
These charts are from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). I know nothing of the organization so I can't speak to the veracity of their numbers and I didn't look up the methodology, but I sort of doubt you were looking for a serious answer anyways.
As for 2), it matters because the US buys crops from other countries, including GM crops.
A planned EU/US trade deal should sweep away "non-scientific barriers" to US sales of many genetically modified crops and some chemically treated meats in Europe, the US agriculture secretary said on Tuesday (17 June).
The two sides aim to create the world's largest free-trade pact, whose advocates say it could boost their economies by $100 billion (€74bn) a year each.
But after a year of talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), agriculture is emerging as one of the most difficult areas.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said both sides should have the common goal of opening markets and eliminating "non-scientific barriers".
"Science is a common language ... We will be working towards making sure that whatever agreements are reached, they are consistent with sound science," he told a media briefing during a visit to Brussels...
Vilsack said it was not acceptable that it took four years or more for GM strains to gain access to European markets after winning clearance from the European Food Safety Authority. That compared with a US norm of about 18 months...
Vilsack said the US government was very concerned about suggestions that GM products posed a safety risk, which he said was not borne out by science.
Labelling, suggested by some in Europe, would not be a solution, he said. US labels, he said, typically concerned nutritional information or carried a specific warning, for example to alert those with a peanut allergy.
Insisting on a label indicating a foodstuff contained a GM product risked sending a wrong impression that this was a safety issue, he said.
The US and EU are also squabbling about meat, with the EU opposed to imports of meat that is chemically washed or meat from animals taking hormone supplements. But those are more mundane, longer-term arguments.
Neither of your responses are really on target. I asked for extensive farming across the world, not just what percentage was biotech. The second has quotes that talk about selling GM not buying it for domestic distribution.
Uh, the first two charts are in millions of hectares. The chart as a % of various crops is to give some kind of context of whether it is a lot or a little, which it appears to be substantial for the selected crops.
EDIT: More detailed info. I expected you to prefer pictures to numbers.
My answer to your second question was merely a single sentence. The quotes were a totally separate thing, just an interesting note with the official US position on why the federal government does not mandate GMO labeling either within the US or on foods for export.
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever.
Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
So you are a kinda "hate the game, not the player type." Noted.
//edit: For all we know, those GMO companies with vested interests in the status quo and their bottomline had nothing, absoutely nothing else in mind but to steer the hearts and minds of concerned citizens to the truth and their well being.
On October 22 2014 14:28 IgnE wrote: The question was in response to an assertion that GM farming was not intensive, i.e. extensive. None of that data is helpful.
Oh okay. It was a stupid answer to a stupid question then.
Little short on cash... If you're a cop just steal it...
Backing away asking questions... Clearly you need some mace in the face.
How many videos have to show what is happening countless times off camera, before the people who aren't getting harrased, threatened, their rights denied, robbed, and murdered, stop saying it's'just a few bad apples' or 'isolated incidents' and actually do something?
The police releasing a statement saying people need to stop filming them is especially comforting.....
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
So you are a kinda "hate the game, not the player type." Noted.
//edit: For all we know, those GMO companies with vested interests in the status quo and their bottomline had nothing, absoutely nothing else in mind but to steer the hearts and minds of concerned citizens to the truth and their well being.
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
So you are a kinda "hate the game, not the player type." Noted.
//edit: For all we know, those GMO companies with vested interests in the status quo and their bottomline had nothing, absoutely nothing else in mind but to steer the hearts and minds of concerned citizens to the truth and their well being.
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Political bribery is illegal in the US.
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
So you are a kinda "hate the game, not the player type." Noted.
//edit: For all we know, those GMO companies with vested interests in the status quo and their bottomline had nothing, absoutely nothing else in mind but to steer the hearts and minds of concerned citizens to the truth and their well being.
Plausible for you, plausible for me.
You kinda have to be at this point. If you want to attack everybody and everything that has a huge money backing from few sources in politics, you're going to find yourself supporting people that think they're wizards and participating in drum circles on a regular basis.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if many that were for mandatory labeling didn't have the publics' well being in mind as a primary driver either. There are plenty of people in this topic alone that would love to support a bill that was basically "The 'Fuck Monsanto' Bill" if given the chance.
On October 23 2014 01:08 Nyxisto wrote: If "whoever throws more money at the voters wins" is democratic then you have a very interesting definition of the word.
I'm pretty sure you have a fetish with the word. I'm not making a statement one way or another on democracy and money in that post, merely stating the political reality at this time. If you want my idealistic opinion on it, then shift the discussion to money in politics. As of now, the discussion seems to be stuck on GMO labeling.
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
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.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls.
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree.
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. And don't tell me those 4(sic!) anti gmo label donors are just concerned citizens who hate anti science bullshit spread... In fact they were
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
People spend money in politics?! TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS?!?! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Believe it or not, "money" isn't always against "the people," nor are vested interests. At the end of the day, they were able to sway voters and bring out enough people to defeat the ballot initiatives. For all you know, 75% of the population was against it and didn't know it until they were made aware.
If you want to complain that money shouldn't be in politics like this, sway the conversation to that. Otherwise, they're just playing the same game everybody else is.
So you are a kinda "hate the game, not the player type." Noted.
//edit: For all we know, those GMO companies with vested interests in the status quo and their bottomline had nothing, absoutely nothing else in mind but to steer the hearts and minds of concerned citizens to the truth and their well being.
Plausible for you, plausible for me.
You kinda have to be at this point. If you want to attack everybody and everything that has a huge money backing from few sources in politics, you're going to find yourself supporting people that think they're wizards and participating in drum circles on a regular basis.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if many that were for mandatory labeling didn't have the publics' well being in mind as a primary driver either. There are plenty of people in this topic alone that would love to support a bill that was basically "The 'Fuck Monsanto' Bill" if given the chance.
As true as that may be, it's hardly relevant to the labelling issue at hand. And Monsanto is hardly the only provider of GMO crops.
What astonishes me most is the widespread trust of Americans in regards to the private sector's actions, while what government does is pretty much always highly suspicious. Both of those entities need to be be under scrutiny and people no too trusting of either of them.
On October 23 2014 01:08 Nyxisto wrote: If "whoever throws more money at the voters wins" is democratic then you have a very interesting definition of the word.
Agreed, but are we discussing GMO's in food or the validity of democracy in the U.S.? "Special interests spent a ton of money to defeat the mandatory labeling ballot initiative" is not an argument for why the initiative should succeed. It's just spite. Is it so inconceivable that the evil corporations got it right this time?
On October 23 2014 01:08 Nyxisto wrote: If "whoever throws more money at the voters wins" is democratic then you have a very interesting definition of the word.
Agreed, but are we discussing GMO's in food or the validity of democracy in the U.S.? "Special interests spent a ton of money to defeat the mandatory labeling ballot initiative" is not an argument for why the initiative should succeed. It's just spite. Is it so inconceivable that the evil corporations got it right this time?
This is exactly why the two should be intertwined in this case. "No GMO label because of a shitton of money from special interest". Is that so inconceivable and "far out"?
On October 23 2014 01:08 Nyxisto wrote: If "whoever throws more money at the voters wins" is democratic then you have a very interesting definition of the word.
Agreed, but are we discussing GMO's in food or the validity of democracy in the U.S.? "Special interests spent a ton of money to defeat the mandatory labeling ballot initiative" is not an argument for why the initiative should succeed. It's just spite. Is it so inconceivable that the evil corporations got it right this time?
It's a mixture of both. Consumer decisions are nearly never based on some kind of scientific decision-making, and if people want a label so they can make what they deem is the best decision then this is as valid as any other kind of argument as long as you're not living in some kind of technocratic dictatorship.
If throwing around huge sums of money and starting media campaigns is what defines a democracy then Russia is the best democracy on the planet.
EPT![[image loading]](http://isaaa.org/siteimages/pocketkimages/pk16-clip_image002.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://isaaa.org/siteimages/pocketkimages/pk16-clip_image003.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://isaaa.org/siteimages/pocketkimages/pk16-clip_image005.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://isaaa.org/siteimages/pocketkimages/pk16-clip_image004.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/residentevil/de/images/thumb/3/3e/Umbre.png/276px-Umbre.png)
