|
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 April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective.
Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products".
It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time.
Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time.
Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak 
EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world.
If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this line of argument is absurd. are you going to say, the salem witches should have done a better job educating the public?
|
Multiple tornados have been reported in Illinois on Thursday evening, with at least one massive twister touching down near the town of Rochelle and reports of damage in the nearby communities of Fairdale, Kirkland and Ashton.
There have also been thunderstorms, hail and high winds throughout the area, and authorities are urging residents to seek shelter.
Chicago Weather Center says there are reports of injuries and that some people may be trapped in damaged buildings.
Source
|
Poor Monsanto can't defend itself. Oh geeze.
|
On April 10 2015 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Poor Monsanto can't defend itself. Oh geeze.
You're not asking Monsanto to defend just itself, you're asking Monsanto to defend all of society from misinformation.
|
On April 10 2015 10:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective. Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products". It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time. Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time. Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world. If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit.
considering almost 99% of things contain gmo and the remaining 1% is labeled organic, why is there a need to label anything GMO? its gmo by default. this whole debate is really stupid.
|
Why not do it like gluten? Allow companies to state their product does not contain GMO organisms? I laugh my ass off every time I see that my bottled water is gluten free. But apparently Nestle and Coca cola are both very adamant about informing the public that their water does not contain it. Why not let them do the same for GMOs?
I don't see too many ppl stopping in shock that their bread and spaghetti contain gluten. And I doubt the lack of a does not contain GMO line will be any different.
It's just targeted at tinfoil hatters instead of celiacs.
|
On April 10 2015 12:09 Acrofales wrote:
Why not do it like gluten? Allow companies to state their product does not contain GMO organisms? I laugh my ass off every time I see that my bottled water is gluten free. But apparently Nestle and Coca cola are both very adamant about informing the public that their water does not contain it. Why not let them do the same for GMOs?
I don't see too many ppl stopping in shock that their bread and spaghetti contain gluten. And I doubt the lack of a does not contain GMO line will be any different.
It's just targeted at tinfoil hatters instead of celiacs.
They do let them. There's nothing stopping anyone from labeling their product as GMO-free, assuming it really is.
Also, gluten-free stuff is targeted at tinfoil hatters too. The vast majority of people into gluten-free diets are not celiacs, they're suckers.
|
On April 10 2015 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Poor Monsanto can't defend itself. Oh geeze. You're not asking Monsanto to defend just itself, you're asking Monsanto to defend all of society from misinformation.
No I'm not. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about GMO non-Monsanto products. Stop being hyperbolic. But you guys are really working it. Let's all shed a tear for Monsanto.
|
On April 10 2015 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective. Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products". It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time. Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time. Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world. If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit. considering almost 99% of things contain gmo and the remaining 1% is labeled organic, why is there a need to label anything GMO? its gmo by default. this whole debate is really stupid.
That's my point just put the few words on their products without being legally compelled and nip the problem in the bud. It's not going to do much to change people's food purchases, and they could save themselves the money on fighting laws and such.
|
On April 10 2015 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 05:03 ZasZ. wrote:On April 10 2015 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 23:31 hunts wrote:
So wait, several pages ago greenhorizens said the 2nd cop should not be charged as an accessory because maybe be didn't speak out for fear of losing his job because he's a black cop? So gh is fine with the black cop not saying anything about the taser, or lie about cpr, or the shooting, but somehow only the white cop is rqcist?
Also good on the stop to the forced change, it sounds pretty awful. I said we don't know if he should. Though his report was released and was so baron of critical details he should be charged as an accomplice at this point. Basically in a plea he would get little to no punishment in exchange for rolling over on what could be a larger department issue. If he can't find evidence of that or it simply isn't the case, he's fucked. Of course if he did roll he'd probably never get hired as a cop again (unless he found a squeaky clean department [although not sure how many of those exist]). But it's still a long time till a verdict, who knows what kind of punishment (beyond getting fired) will actually be doled out, if at all. @Yoav But forcing anybody or having kids or other persons incapable of legal consent to do much of anything related to sexuality should be illegal. That wasn't referring to general sexual education was it? I believe Yoav was talking specifically about conversion therapy, which isn't necessarily related to sexuality if you are trying to convert a transgender person to identify with their birth sex. Regardless, it's messed up and that should be obvious to everyone. Sending your child to go to conversion therapy is making the issue about you, as a parent, and how you are unable to cope with the person your child is becoming. No one should be that self-centered. I presume it wasn't I just wanted to be sure. Yeah I think conversion therapy is a twisted practice in general but forcefully doing it to children is most definitely child abuse imo.
Yeah I am most definitely pro-sex education lol. The number of self-respecting men in my EMT class who had no idea how a woman's cycle work is terrifying.
But I do kinda stand by my principle, with clarification. Sex education isn't, or shouldn't be, "Go do/don't do this or that." Except for BS abstinence-only, it's not prescriptive. There's a difference between being informative and prescriptive, and a further level of trying to change the very nature of someones gender or sexuality. Sex ed should teach people how bodies and contraceptives and the like work without saying "You must behave in such and such a way."
|
On April 10 2015 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 10 2015 10:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective. Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products". It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time. Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time. Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world. If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit. considering almost 99% of things contain gmo and the remaining 1% is labeled organic, why is there a need to label anything GMO? its gmo by default. this whole debate is really stupid. That's my point just put the few words on their without being legally compelled and nip the problem in the bud. It's not going to do much to change people's food purchases, and they could save themselves the money on fighting laws and such.
the fight over the laws has little to do with the actual label requirement although they dislike that as well. its the insane enforcement provisions that scare the food industry. the same people who drafted prop 65 (a cluster fuck of frivolous litigation) drafted the gmo labelling laws in california. they are also plaintiffs' attorneys. so why are they so interested in such laws? and who is paying their bills? spoiler, they want to file lawsuits and the organic lobby.
|
On April 10 2015 12:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 10 2015 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Poor Monsanto can't defend itself. Oh geeze. You're not asking Monsanto to defend just itself, you're asking Monsanto to defend all of society from misinformation. No I'm not. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about GMO non-Monsanto products. Stop being hyperbolic. But you guys are really working it. Let's all shed a tear for Monsanto.
Oh, really?
On April 10 2015 10:46 IgnE wrote:
It sounds like Monsanto should have done a better job educating the public
|
On April 10 2015 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 10:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective. Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products". It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time. Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time. Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world. If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit. considering almost 99% of things contain gmo and the remaining 1% is labeled organic, why is there a need to label anything GMO? its gmo by default. this whole debate is really stupid.
That was my point last time- most of the time, companies that are in the business of selling to the no-GMO crowd like to make it as obvious as possible. Simply assume that if it doesn't say "GMO FREE" or "ORGANIC" on the front then it probably isn't up to whatever standard you have self-imposed on your food.
The people who need special food already know where to look- I have family with health issues and they do their research instead of just blithely buying whatever they see first.
|
Everything we eat is a GMO and we have been modifying our food since before civilization. If Monsanto wasn't such a prick corporation GMO's wouldn't have this much blowback imo.
|
On April 10 2015 12:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 12:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 10 2015 10:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:09 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2015 10:02 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 10:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 10 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 10 2015 09:40 IgnE wrote:We had this discussion last year about labeling of GMOs. GMO products are not required to feed the world's masses, and despite some highly publicized "successes" haven't been very responsible for reducing starvation/malnutrition.
GMO products use less pesticide because the plants themselves are producing pesticides thanks to gene insertions, but also typically use more herbicides, creating super weeds that are resistant to herbicides and upping the arms race. This also eliminates biodiversity by destroying food sources (e.g. Monarch butterflies).
If all GMO foods that people have been eating for years were labeled the public would likely come around to realizing that GMO products are for the most part safe. People in the United States already don't trust their food producers (for good reasons, considering the food industry's abominations in the second half of the 20th century and its detrimental impact on public health), and more transparent labeling would go a long way in helping them regain the public's trust.
[. . .]
There are plenty of other risks from GMO: soil conservation problems, GMOs require intensive farming with a lot of capital inputs, gene-hopping from corn to other species, etc.
Not to mention that it seems perfectly defensible to want to label GMOs simply because you disagree with the application of the technology. The technology might be kind of neutral, but there is plenty to disagree with in Monsanto's and others' applications of the technology, and consumers might want to know which foods are GMO. And like I said many pages ago, GMO labeling would foster more goodwill through increased transparency. The food industry is a shady, shitty business in many ways, and better labeling and more public outreach would go a long way in shaping this country's eating habits. A relentless emphasis on profits over health has shaped the electorate's health for the worse, and GMO labeling is a pretty small step towards better communication. When there's all this fearmongering, negative press out there about GMO's, you can't really blame Monsanto for not wanting to label their products. Imagine you had a product. You had no real evidence that it was unsafe, and quite a bit of evidence that it was safe. Then some idiot or scam artist publishes a "study" that says your product will make the customer's face melt off. Then a bunch of gullible idiots and maybe a celebrity or two buy into that nonsense, and start demanding you put a warning label on your product, something like "WARNING: MAY MAKE FACE MELT". Would you really put that label on with no opposition? This analogy is pretty weak. I don't know of many people out there saying that GMO-foods should be labeled, "WARNING: may cause XXX", particularly because there's zero evidence that says that GMO's cause any negative health effects. The argument is that it should simply be labeled to state that it contains GMO's. There is no "WARNING" or other negative claim. When everyone has heard all the BS about GMO foods causing this or that, a label stating "Contains genetically modified food" is essentially "WARNING: IS POISON". Sounds like a problem of shitty PR people of the industry, not a reason not to label. PR is all about momentum, and the anti-GMO people are driving a freight train. I think it's unwinnable from a PR perspective. Honestly that has been the death of a lot of products. You think GMO's have/had it tough try cannabis/hemp lol. I can understand the complaints in general, but it's a joke. The food industry should just get ahead of the issue and just slap a "may contain GMO's" on everything. People aren't going to stop drinking coke or eating cheerio's because in the same tiny print the ingredients are in, somewhere on the list it says "may contain gmo products". It might spark a news report or two, but simply being open and honest about the product, and not denying to comment on anything unless it's a completely controlled atmosphere, and some half-witted PR people should be able to get this dealt with in no time. Even if mass hysteria and stupidity swept the nation against eating gmo food and the realization they have been doing it for a long time, net-net I'd bet the impact on people's general dietary choices would be less significant than what ever fad diet (Think Atkins) is popular at the time. Best case, they save themselves a bunch of money not paying people like DaPhreak EDIT: I was just thinking.... Alcohol and Tobacco KILL their consumers.They literally DIE from using their product. In the case of alcohol it's one of few of any substances available even among prescription/illegal drugs that can actually KILL the consumer from just refusing/being unable to buy and consume their product (if they have become severely addicted). Not only can they legally sell their knowingly deadly and addictive product they are among the most successful businesses in the country/world. If the food industry/PR people think labeling products with "Contains GMO products" is some insurmountable obstacle, they should just get new jobs. They aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to bad PR, not to mention they have the benefit of most of the stuff people are worried about being bullshit. considering almost 99% of things contain gmo and the remaining 1% is labeled organic, why is there a need to label anything GMO? its gmo by default. this whole debate is really stupid. That was my point last time- most of the time, companies that are in the business of selling to the no-GMO crowd like to make it as obvious as possible. Simply assume that if it doesn't say "GMO FREE" or "ORGANIC" on the front then it probably isn't up to whatever standard you have self-imposed on your food. The people who need special food already know where to look- I have family with health issues and they do their research instead of just blithely buying whatever they see first.
fun fact. federal courts in california (the so-called "food court") have specifically asked the FDA to address the "all natural" and GMO issues, and the FDA told them to fuck off because they have better things to do. i am not talking about one court, numerous courts have asked them to address it. the fda says they rather focus on real concerns like obesity.
|
OT: But just realized 150 years ago was Appomattox. Anyways, carry on.
|
On April 10 2015 12:31 Slaughter wrote:
Everything we eat is a GMO and we have been modifying our food since before civilization. If Monsanto wasn't such a prick corporation GMO's wouldn't have this much blowback imo.
They aren't perfect, but a lot of what people don't like about Monsanto isn't actually true or is greatly exaggerated. People don't like that Monsanto will sue a farmer if their seeds blow into their fields, but Monsanto doesn't actually do that.
|
On April 10 2015 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 12:31 Slaughter wrote:
Everything we eat is a GMO and we have been modifying our food since before civilization. If Monsanto wasn't such a prick corporation GMO's wouldn't have this much blowback imo. They aren't perfect, but a lot of what people don't like about Monsanto isn't actually true or is greatly exaggerated. People don't like that Monsanto will sue a farmer if their seeds blow into their fields, but Monsanto doesn't actually do that.
they might not do that, but a lot of the farm culture and politics are heavily influenced by them.
|
Monsanto has sued and does sue farmers. It gets sued probably more than it sues for unscrupulous practices. And yes jonny, Monsanto hasn't done a good job educating the public about its products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
