|
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 March 15 2016 05:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:13 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. On March 15 2016 05:01 oneofthem wrote:
GE crops are tested like drugs. pretty highly unlikely for an allergen gene to accidentally slip through into the organism and then slip past detection. it's not really a serious worry.
Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? 100% in all future universes is not a reasonable standard of risk. So if you can't remove risk, why are you advocating for the label not being on the food? uh because the same or higher level risk exists in other foods. labeling is just not informative about the risk level.
So why shouldn't they be labeled as GMOs if they are safer as you claim?
|
@Mohdoo: technically you'd want to run a SDS-PAGE, a Southern Blot or something that detects proteins rather than PCR/ gel electrophoresis which looks at DNA. DNA is not going to cause allergies, though interestingly it is toxic at very high concentrations. Also dentists know about radiation... they gotta do X-rays. 
@P6: I don't think GMO is necessarily the right culprit here. Yes, genes can be introduced to, say, a tomato that code for some protein that causes you to have a severe allergic reaction. It's a very, very rare case that slips through the approval process. I don't want to say you're shit out of luck... but it kind of is that way. The public health benefit of marking GMO's isn't worth the expense.
I can sympathize though. I have a bit of a skin condition where seemingly random things will cause weird rashy flare ups that are very uncomfortable and take a few weeks to heal. No dermatologist has been able to figure out the cause. I have only a very vague idea of what causes it, but I do my best to avoid potential irritants. It's probably some chemical used in the manufacture of certain goods, but isn't really marked or banned because it's very safe and reaction to it is so rare.
|
Norway28861 Posts
I'm no scientist but I totally believe that GMO is not more harmful than not GMO and I totally get that adding a label might make a significant portion of people not purchase GMO products for 'wrong reasons'.
Still, what plansix says also seems intuitive ; the fact that there's such resistance towards labeling combined with some semi-legit semi-conspiratory anti-monsanto sentiments seems to me like fuel for the irrational anti-GMO movement. Basically, intuitively, any group subject to irrational dislike should voluntarily be as open and transparent as can be- and that's not what I'm seeing. (Not saying that I myself am skeptical towards GMO due to this, just that it seems obvious to me that there are segments of society that will be.)
|
On March 15 2016 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 03:53 farvacola wrote:This notion that SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone can provide us with an answer to a problem like energy production is hilariously stupid. If you come to the table with oneofthem goggles on and assume that someone with an anti-nuclear or anti-fracking perspective is inherently ignorant of science, good luck leaving that table having accomplished anything. Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain  edit: puerk gets it. Modern reactors do not product waste as we know it because it was be converted back to fuel. The "actual" waste produced ends up being similar to other "green" forms of energy. Your post highlights my point, you don't understand what's out there. If you don't understand the specifics that influence the production of conversion of nuclear waste, you aren't making an informed decision.
The viability of "wasteless" nuclear technology is not a settled matter, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Nuclear energy production involves more than just the reactor, so unless you're suggesting that scientists have found a way to extract, process, and then utilize nuclear material without noticeable waste or harmful by-product, your answer is delightfully ironic in its accusations of naivete.
|
On March 15 2016 04:58 m4ini wrote:
Americans arguing that "labeling the food isn't needed" are funny. First, if you don't need it to be labeled, that's fine. Don't tell others what they should know about their food and what not. Second, considering that one of the most iconic american "things" (the dodge viper) comes with not one, but a couple of stickers telling you that the exhaust might be hot (or you shouldn't put living things into microwaves), i don't think labeling GMO food is unreasonable.
The problem is saying what Must be labeled.
I'm perfectly fine with a company that wants to put a 'GMO' or 'nonGMO' label on their food, just like I'd be OK with one that wanted to put a 'our corporation donates to Democrats/Republicans' label. I wouldn't mandate either, because that's not information the average person needs to know, especially when it is available. (The corporation can put the label on that people want...people want non-GMO/low fat/employee owned company/we send a koran to Africa for every soup can..then put that label on your food..just make sure it is true)
|
On March 15 2016 04:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 04:33 ZasZ. wrote:On March 15 2016 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Any genetically modified food should be labeled. I have nothing against it and will eat it, but that information should be available. It doesn't need to be front and center, but it should be some place on the package. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. Well in that case I want to know if the person responsible for harvesting my corn has a criminal record. There is no justifiable reason to deny people that information. There are relevant food labels and then there are irrelevant food labels. Adding to the stigma surrounding GMOs as a concept does not help anyone. If people care enough for some inexplicable reason, they should be able to research where their food comes from, that much I agree with. But putting it on the package just gets people to pick up something else for no reason at all. Someone’s desire for GMOs to be labeled could be due to very practical concerns, including allergies and an inability to digest some GMOs. Not every request is some left wing hippy trying to eat only pure food. These are not lethal allergies, but its no fun to buy food that makes you feel like shit. People deserve information about what is in their food, if for the sole purpose so they can make informed buying decisions on what they eat. That is why they are labeled, so people can know what is in them.
lol. This is exactly the kind of far left antiscience people are talking about.
Clearly every apple we buy needs its own attached genome printout, along with every single ncbi blast breakdown of every protein produceable by the genome, and all gene expression rates.
|
On March 15 2016 05:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:06 Mohdoo wrote:On March 15 2016 03:53 farvacola wrote:This notion that SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone can provide us with an answer to a problem like energy production is hilariously stupid. If you come to the table with oneofthem goggles on and assume that someone with an anti-nuclear or anti-fracking perspective is inherently ignorant of science, good luck leaving that table having accomplished anything. Here's a hint Mohdoo; arguments against the encouragement of nuclear energy doesn't rely exclusively on issues of safety, they instead usually turn on issues of waste, and if you don't think the latter deserves at least some lip-service, well, go visit Yucca Mountain edit: puerk gets it. Modern reactors do not product waste as we know it because it was be converted back to fuel. The "actual" waste produced ends up being similar to other "green" forms of energy. Your post highlights my point, you don't understand what's out there. If you don't understand the specifics that influence the production of conversion of nuclear waste, you aren't making an informed decision. The viability of "wasteless" nuclear technology is not a settled matter, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Nuclear energy production involves more than just the reactor, so unless you're suggesting that scientists have found a way to extract, process, and then utilize nuclear material without noticeable waste or harmful by-product, your answer is delightfully ironic in its accusations of naivete.
My point wasn't that there's no waste. My point was that we are not working with close to the same technology as Chernobyl. It's a billion times better now. I think nuclear is a great form of energy compared with modern methods and considering modern needs. Solar can't do it alone yet.
|
On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information?
The article you linked states the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Half the article is even dedicated to DEBUNKING this sentence:
[GE crops] may produce new allergens and toxins[...]
Just to make sure no one misses this part - the quoted sentence is WRONG and the article specifically argues so!!!!!
Oh and it even finishes off with this tidbit which answers the question I posed and had you actually bothered to read what you linked you would have avoided the egg you now have on your face:
It's also worth noting as Pamela Ronald did in this space two years ago:
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops.
Arguing for GMO-labeling due to health concerns is downright misguided and ignorant.
|
GMO labeling offers nothing except fear mongering, short of genomic breakdown of protein production per food item, regardless of gmo or non gmo, this kind of labeling is pointless.
|
On March 15 2016 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? The article you linked states the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Half the article is even dedicated to DEBUNKING this sentence: Just to make sure no one misses this part - the quoted sentence is WRONG and the article specifically argues so!!!!! Oh and it even finishes off with this tidbit which answers the question I posed and had you actually bothered to read what you linked you would have avoided the egg you now have on your face: Show nested quote +It's also worth noting as Pamela Ronald did in this space two years ago:
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops. Arguing for GMO-labeling due to health concerns is downright misguided and ignorant.
The argument boils down to this: Some people want labels on GMOs so they can make decisions. They don’t feel they are perfectly safe. Science has tested them and says they are perfectly safe. People are not 100% convinced and still want labels.
To the options are:
A: provide labels and people buy what they want. On a long enough time line, maybe the general public gets over their concern
Or
B: don’t provide labels and continue to have the discussion.
Personally, I don’t see a reason not to provide labels. The only way people’s perception is going to change is if they know what they are eating. Without that information, they will just have to rely on rumor and conclusions based on incomplete information. The only reason not to provide labels is some desire to make people trust something they would rather just test for themselves.
|
Just a reminder that polling is way less accurate at this stage of the campaign. So expect the unexpected tomorrow. Just to see this, see what polls have said about the Dem race in Illinois over the last week:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VGtWtCj.png)
|
On March 15 2016 05:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? The article you linked states the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Half the article is even dedicated to DEBUNKING this sentence: [GE crops] may produce new allergens and toxins[...] Just to make sure no one misses this part - the quoted sentence is WRONG and the article specifically argues so!!!!! Oh and it even finishes off with this tidbit which answers the question I posed and had you actually bothered to read what you linked you would have avoided the egg you now have on your face: It's also worth noting as Pamela Ronald did in this space two years ago:
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops. Arguing for GMO-labeling due to health concerns is downright misguided and ignorant. The argument boils down to this: Some people want labels on GMOs so they can make decisions. They don’t feel they are perfectly safe. Science has tested them and says they are perfectly safe. People are not 100% convinced and still want labels. To the options are: A: provide labels and people buy what they want. On a long enough time line, maybe the general public gets over their concern Or B: don’t provide labels and continue to have the discussion. Personally, I don’t see a reason not to provide labels. The only way people’s perception is going to change is if they know what they are eating. Without that information, they will just have to rely on rumor and conclusions based on incomplete information. The only reason not to provide labels is some desire to make people trust something they would rather just test for themselves.
I don't think anyone is against useful labeling.
Problem is gmo labeling isn't useful.
|
On March 15 2016 05:43 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:39 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? The article you linked states the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Half the article is even dedicated to DEBUNKING this sentence: [GE crops] may produce new allergens and toxins[...] Just to make sure no one misses this part - the quoted sentence is WRONG and the article specifically argues so!!!!! Oh and it even finishes off with this tidbit which answers the question I posed and had you actually bothered to read what you linked you would have avoided the egg you now have on your face: It's also worth noting as Pamela Ronald did in this space two years ago:
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops. Arguing for GMO-labeling due to health concerns is downright misguided and ignorant. The argument boils down to this: Some people want labels on GMOs so they can make decisions. They don’t feel they are perfectly safe. Science has tested them and says they are perfectly safe. People are not 100% convinced and still want labels. To the options are: A: provide labels and people buy what they want. On a long enough time line, maybe the general public gets over their concern Or B: don’t provide labels and continue to have the discussion. Personally, I don’t see a reason not to provide labels. The only way people’s perception is going to change is if they know what they are eating. Without that information, they will just have to rely on rumor and conclusions based on incomplete information. The only reason not to provide labels is some desire to make people trust something they would rather just test for themselves. I don't think anyone is against useful labeling. Problem is gmo labeling isn't useful.
That is fine, but don’t expect people to trust you or anyone else. They are concerned about this and the standard response is: “Trust science, its fine. We have tested things in the past and they have never turned out to be harmful later on.”
The concern over GMOs may not be valid, but telling people to not worry about it isn’t a very convincing argument. The alternative is to label the foods and earn the public trust over team, which is far more likely a more productive, consumer friendly route.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 15 2016 05:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:21 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:13 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. On March 15 2016 05:01 oneofthem wrote:
GE crops are tested like drugs. pretty highly unlikely for an allergen gene to accidentally slip through into the organism and then slip past detection. it's not really a serious worry.
Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? 100% in all future universes is not a reasonable standard of risk. So if you can't remove risk, why are you advocating for the label not being on the food? uh because the same or higher level risk exists in other foods. labeling is just not informative about the risk level. So why shouldn't they be labeled as GMOs if they are safer as you claim?
because labeling imposes very clear cost and negative market effect. it's a pretty common issue in international trade to haggle over labeling provisions, and there's an international body set up to set standards on labeling so you don't get countries using these very powerful methods to bias against foreign products and so on.
so labeling is touching on a core commercial interest
the illuminati itself
|
On March 15 2016 05:43 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:39 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:32 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:09 Ghostcom wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. Do you have any confirmed cases of someone being allergic to a GMO variant but not to the "natural" variant? I can't recall a single credible case report. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/allergic-to-science-proteins-and-allergens-in-our-genetically-engineered-food/Scientific America did a some research and found it was a risk. Maybe not a serious risk that warrants panic or avoid the tech. But if I was prone to allergies already, I would want to know what I was eating. So the real question: Is it safe enough to deny the people buying the food this information? The article you linked states the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Half the article is even dedicated to DEBUNKING this sentence: [GE crops] may produce new allergens and toxins[...] Just to make sure no one misses this part - the quoted sentence is WRONG and the article specifically argues so!!!!! Oh and it even finishes off with this tidbit which answers the question I posed and had you actually bothered to read what you linked you would have avoided the egg you now have on your face: It's also worth noting as Pamela Ronald did in this space two years ago:
There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops. Arguing for GMO-labeling due to health concerns is downright misguided and ignorant. The argument boils down to this: Some people want labels on GMOs so they can make decisions. They don’t feel they are perfectly safe. Science has tested them and says they are perfectly safe. People are not 100% convinced and still want labels. To the options are: A: provide labels and people buy what they want. On a long enough time line, maybe the general public gets over their concern Or B: don’t provide labels and continue to have the discussion. Personally, I don’t see a reason not to provide labels. The only way people’s perception is going to change is if they know what they are eating. Without that information, they will just have to rely on rumor and conclusions based on incomplete information. The only reason not to provide labels is some desire to make people trust something they would rather just test for themselves. I don't think anyone is against useful labeling. Problem is gmo labeling isn't useful.
Yeah, the "GMO-ness" of a food doesn't seem to carry any information besides to encourage a reactionary consumer trend.
|
On March 15 2016 05:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 05:25 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:21 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 05:13 oneofthem wrote:On March 15 2016 05:05 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2016 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well that's labeling ingredients and not GMO/non-GMO, isn't it? Unless you are allergic to some version GMO wheat, but are fine with organic? Or you aren’t really allergic, but it fucks you up real good and you spend the next day running to the bathroom. That is how people how can’t drink milk live. Food should provide people with information on what it is. Not was scientist claim is “exactly the same as” because if it was exactly the same, we wouldn’t call it GMO. Just let people know and they will decide. Part of the resistance to GMOs is due to this resistance to label them, TBH. On March 15 2016 05:01 oneofthem wrote:
GE crops are tested like drugs. pretty highly unlikely for an allergen gene to accidentally slip through into the organism and then slip past detection. it's not really a serious worry.
Are you saying that no person in the US will be allergic to the GMO? 100% free of allergens for 100% of people in the US? 100% in all future universes is not a reasonable standard of risk. So if you can't remove risk, why are you advocating for the label not being on the food? uh because the same or higher level risk exists in other foods. labeling is just not informative about the risk level. So why shouldn't they be labeled as GMOs if they are safer as you claim? because labeling imposes very clear cost and negative market effect. it's a pretty common issue in international trade to haggle over labeling provisions, and there's an international body set up to set standards on labeling so you don't get countries using these very powerful methods to bias against foreign products and so on. so labeling is touching on a core commercial interest
As always core argument profit vs information to the consumer:
Company selling GMO food wants to profit vs the consumer’s desire for information. Gee, I am totally shocked why there is distrust over this issue, which leads to conspiracy theories.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not about profit, it is about cost. there is really no reason to load the terms
the cost would not be limited to gmo manufacturers but also consumers and chilling effect on technology use etc. the u.s. would also face headwind to negotiate fair treatment of our products in overseas markets already eager to use gmo propaganda as excuse for protectionism.
|
"consumer's desire for information" is actually a proxy for another interest group's profits.
|
On March 15 2016 05:52 oneofthem wrote:
it's not about profit, it is about cost. there is really no reason to load the terms
Costs cut into profits, so they are relevant. If the food is 100% safe, then the information shouldn't be a problem. It should be a boon to the product, since it is safer than non-GMO food. But it sounds like they don't want to spend the money on marketing to dispel these purported myths about GMOs. So they will persist because people don't trust where their food comes from.
|
Perhaps mandatory GMO labeling, if it served to raise the price of food by increasing non-GMO demand, could help raise wages in agriculture and curb the demand for illegal labor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
