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 05:52 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.
1. You've ignored pages of people quoting scientific studies, including the scientific study YOU YOURSELF linked, proving that the part I bolded is simply not true.
2. I don't actually see anything wrong with allowing companies to put labels on their food guaranteeing it doesn't have any GMOs. However, I do see a problem with forcing companies to put labels on their food if it does have GMOs. You see, it's all about the cost and the burden of proof. It'll also be about as informative as "does not contain gluten". Did we really need that printed on bottled water? Are people really dumb enough to think that water might have contained traces of gluten?
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.
1. You've ignored pages of people quoting scientific studies, including the scientific study YOU YOURSELF linked, proving that the part I bolded is simply not true.
2. I don't actually see anything wrong with allowing companies to put labels on their food guaranteeing it doesn't have any GMOs. However, I do see a problem with forcing companies to put labels on their food if it does have GMOs. You see, it's all about the cost and the burden of proof. It'll also be about as informative as "does not contain gluten". Did we really need that printed on bottled water? Are people really dumb enough to think that water might have contained traces of gluten?
I conceded the point like 2 hours ago. If you are going to respond, please make it to the most recent post.
On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote: So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations.
Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something.
If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned.
So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for?
Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected?
Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt.
And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now.
You are validating this completely arbitrary concern, but you are not willing to validate other equally arbitrary concerns. And you are of the opinion that some opinions should not be respected, but one that is batshit insane and flies in the face of all logic definitely should be to a degree where you are going to enforce regulations... I'll go to bed before my headache gets any worse.
I accept that, I just don't see a problem with the label. But if you think peoples concerns will just go away if its ignored, that is totally valid. This isn't an issue that is going to sway my vote on anything.
I interpreted this as you still stumping for a mandatory label thing. But props to you for informing yourself on the issue
On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote: So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations.
Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something.
If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned.
So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for?
Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected?
Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt.
And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now.
You are validating this completely arbitrary concern, but you are not willing to validate other equally arbitrary concerns. And you are of the opinion that some opinions should not be respected, but one that is batshit insane and flies in the face of all logic definitely should be to a degree where you are going to enforce regulations... I'll go to bed before my headache gets any worse.
I accept that, I just don't see a problem with the label. But if you think peoples concerns will just go away if its ignored, that is totally valid. This isn't an issue that is going to sway my vote on anything.
I interpreted this as you still stumping for a mandatory label thing. But props to you for informing yourself on the issue
I can see the the argument for mandatory labeling in the fact that is a concern for people buying food, even if it isn't 100% valid. Informed consent is always important. I just am not willing to change my vote or say that is a major concern for me. I also don't treat scientific studies as divine truth, I am always skeptical. Especially when for profit companies are involved. Currently GMOs appear to be safe. But that does not mean they will be safe forever.
Random-mutations are a thing of nature. Actually, they're the thing that created life.
How is engineered-mutations more of a threat than the random mutations that occur all the time?
If genetic-mutation itself is a threat, then everything is a threat. All organisms are genetic-modifications of something else. Nature is one giant random GMO.
Nothing about Genetically-Modified-Organisms is inherently threatening. I side with environmentalists 99% of the time, which makes this "anti-GMO" thing all the more bothersome.
Soil-erosion is a real threat. GMOs are exactly the kind of thing we need to solve real problems such as that.
Every produce you've ever bought has likely been sprayed with soil-destroying, toxic chemicals of herbicides and pesticides -- do you see that on your labels? GMOs are such a ridiculously false concern.
I don't think it would be a bad idea for companies to be required to state GMO nature of their products on their website in a clear fashion, so that those interested in it can readily access this information. Making GMO labeling mandatory is a different issue, because it implies that being a GMO is an important fact to buyers in terms of the product's safety/nutrition. Remember, people often don't have time to spend learning the intricacies of the goods they are purchasing, so it's reasonable that mandatory labeling should be reserved to things that have a scientific basis for being relevant.
If the only issue is allowing people with prejudices against GMO foods purchase non-GMO, voluntary labeling will mostly solve the issue in due time.
On March 15 2016 09:04 Ghostcom wrote: So we should require a mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for? In that case I'll consider starting a poll about what should be in your signature...
There is no denial of information. There is a denial of arbitrary regulation which would cause an unfair competition because people are idiots. Yes, the marketing departments of GMO-companies should step up their game, but confirmational bias and conspiracies are hard to combat no matter what you do.
EDIT: If you can make an equally compelling ethical argument concerning GMO as that against battery chicken then be my guest. Plansix hasn't made such an argument though - his argument rests on a factually flawed foundation (that some people will be allergic to GMO but not "natural" (whatever that means) products). And it is on that basis he wants to impose arbitrary regulations.
Lets be real clear, I don't give a shit about GMOs for me personally. But I respect the opinions of those who do. I value informed consent when it comes consumer products, especially food. The argument of arbitrary regulation is not compelling because it doesn't do anything for me. Because it is a company saying they don't want to provide information based solely on the concept idea that it might hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the argument that it is "scientifically proven to be fine" is only compelling if we ignore all the times science has been incorrect about something.
If companies making food want to offer the information up without regulation, than that would solve the problem. But if they won't, people are going to keep pushing for regulation because they don't entirely trust GMOs. And the I support a government addressing the concerns of it citizens, even if the scientific community thinks those citizens shouldn't be concerned.
So the answer is yes? You think we should require mandatory labels on everything that the majority wishes for?
Also, is it more or less than 10 pages ago that you stated that not all opinions should be respected?
Context is a critical part of that statement. In this case, the relative harm done by label is minimal, while addressing a public concern. So in this specific case, I think labeling would be a good thing. But that is not a blanket statement for all labels forever. I give no such endorsement. Unless someone can come up with another solution that addresses this concern that the GMO producers could adopt.
And racist opinions are not worthy of my respect, no. But that is not the topic right now.
You are validating this completely arbitrary concern, but you are not willing to validate other equally arbitrary concerns. And you are of the opinion that some opinions should not be respected, but one that is batshit insane and flies in the face of all logic definitely should be to a degree where you are going to enforce regulations... I'll go to bed before my headache gets any worse.
Your arrogance on this issue is typical of doctors with god-complexes who would prefer to legislate for the people in the name of their own good. You haven't addressed any of the agricultural reasons that one might want to require GMO labeling, and you have been negligent on other issues (i.e. suggesting that there is total control over the genes being inserted into GMO foods; one of the most common methods of GMO product development is irradiating products and observing the phenotypes).
On March 15 2016 10:58 ticklishmusic wrote: I think the simplest way is to let companies voluntarily label their food and let those who want make GMO-free a selling point.
Question falls on whether or not it's gov't regulated or something freemarket should decide.
I mean they already have government regulated validation of cage-free egg practices so it's not much of a stretch. First there needs to be lobbying from the industry in question, though, and for now I am pretty sure GMO-free companies prefer just calling themselves organic (a much hotter and more grokkable buzzword) and putting a blurb on the back or on their site rather than try to work with regulators to develop a certification process. The incentive just isn't there.
For GMO-y labeling I really don't see any way around First Amendment protections for corporations here. Their labels are their speech. Unless their speech is doing real harm (as was finally shown with big tobacco) or there's another compelling reason (i.e. religious liberty), majority rule is not going to get past that right in the U.S.
On March 15 2016 12:44 Leporello wrote: Random-mutations are a thing of nature. Actually, they're the thing that created life.
How is engineered-mutations more of a threat than the random mutations that occur all the time?
If genetic-mutation itself is a threat, then everything is a threat. All organisms are genetic-modifications of something else. Nature is one giant random GMO.
Nothing about Genetically-Modified-Organisms is inherently threatening. I side with environmentalists 99% of the time, which makes this "anti-GMO" thing all the more bothersome.
Soil-erosion is a real threat. GMOs are exactly the kind of thing we need to solve real problems such as that.
That's just not how the agricultural side of things works. A random mutation in one fruit does not become the dominant cultivar for sale in the same way that a pink orange produced through irradiation of thousands of seeds becomes the dominant cultivar for mass production. There are a bunch of scientists on this forum oversimplifying the agricultural production process while conflating various concepts like mutation, domestication, and selection with some of the methods involved in GMO. You aren't doing yourself any favors making half-assed arguments because you know how DNA works. Beyond that, many people on this board are obfuscating the rationales for mutation and selection, including how the rationales might differ for Monsanto and the producer of the Kumato, and how that underlying rationale might change the risk calculus in practice.
Also whoever it was that was talking about the problems with IP related to GM foods made another good point.
On March 15 2016 12:44 Leporello wrote: Random-mutations are a thing of nature. Actually, they're the thing that created life.
How is engineered-mutations more of a threat than the random mutations that occur all the time?
If genetic-mutation itself is a threat, then everything is a threat. All organisms are genetic-modifications of something else. Nature is one giant random GMO.
Nothing about Genetically-Modified-Organisms is inherently threatening. I side with environmentalists 99% of the time, which makes this "anti-GMO" thing all the more bothersome.
Soil-erosion is a real threat. GMOs are exactly the kind of thing we need to solve real problems such as that.
That's just not how the agricultural side of things works. A random mutation in one fruit does not become the dominant cultivar for sale in the same way that a pink orange produced through irradiation of thousands of seeds becomes the dominant cultivar for mass production. There are a bunch of scientists on this forum oversimplifying the agricultural production process while conflating various concepts like mutation, domestication, and selection with some of the methods involved in GMO. You aren't doing yourself any favors make half-assed arguments because you know how DNA works. Beyond that, many people on this board are obfuscating the rationales for mutation and selection, including how the rationales might differ for Monsanto and the producer of the Kumato, and how that underlying rationale might change the risk calculus in practice.
Also whoever it was that was talking about the problems with IP related to GM foods made another good point.
Quite simply wrong. Genetic-mutation is what it is.
The cows and corn we eat today aren't the same cows and corn people were eating even a 100 years ago -- and that isn't because we modified them in a lab. It was done by happenstance of breeding and random mutation.
What possible rationale is there for arguing that we need to label genetic-mutation, when there are so many more *real* concerns, such as chemical sprays, which require no labeling.
And no one is arguing for it. I could respect arguing for GMO-labeling, maybe, maybe, if these same people were arguing foremost for labeling of pesticide sprays.
But they aren't. It's a hot-button political issue, there is no scientific-merit to say we need GMO labeling. Rather, it's entirely playing on people's fear of science. I understand hating Monsanto, but this is an issue built on fear, not informed concern.
How about 1) you make charitable assumptions about your opponent and consider the best case for labeling instead of this phantom idiot you seem to be arguing with and 2) read what I said? A statement like, "Quite simply wrong. Genetic-mutation is what it is" is such a moronic response to what I said that I have a strong urge to write you off as a complete idiot.
Oh, I'm sorry, were you arguing for the labeling of pesticides and herbicides over the labeling of "GMO"? I missed that post.
A random mutation in one fruit does not become the dominant cultivar for sale in the same way that a pink orange produced through irradiation of thousands of seeds becomes the dominant cultivar for mass production.
No one says it is the same. That's exactly my point, in fact, they're not the same. But what makes engineering less safe than randomness?
make charitable assumptions. write you off as a complete idiot.
Because natural mutations occur in individuals and GMO foods are oftentimes essentially random mutations that are rapidly mass produced and set into the wild as entire populations. Because the rationale for many of the genetic modifications (i.e. gene to survive roundup or produce natural pesticide) is to produce a monoculture that increases systemic risk in our global food systems by reducing biodiversity and decreases system robustness. Because genes inserted from other animal kingdoms that can spread through cross-pollination to other plant species may cause unintended side effects that would not have been possible through simple selection processes.
Genetic engineering obviously does what breeding does over the course of a hundred years in a minute. That GMOs with sufficient regulation are safe isn't really a matter of debate, but that genetic engineering is just the same as Mendel breeding peas in his monastery is pretty ridiculous.
I feel like the most reasonable option is to treat it the same way cage-free eggs etc are treated.
If a company thinks its brand will benefit from being GMO free, they should be able to demonstrate that this is so and then put a huge label on their product that says it is GMO free. Consumers who think it is important are free to buy the non-GMO product, probably at a premium, and consumers who don't care are free to buy whatever they want.
I don't see any reason to prevent that happening.
The reverse, however - mandatory labelling of GMO products - basically amounts to a scare campaign. It would be a similar situation if you mandated that all fresh produce had to be labelled with a list of the pesticides used around it, or meat had to be labelled with all the strange things feedlot animals are fed. Most people don't have the expertise to use that information in any way other than "oh god chemicals bad", and so it just makes everyone afraid for no reason.
On March 15 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote: Genetic engineering obviously does what breeding does over the course of a hundred years in a minute. That GMOs with sufficient regulation are safe isn't really a matter of debate, but that genetic engineering is just the same as Mendel breeding peas in his monastery is pretty ridiculous.
This thread has really gone to shit lately. I don't know why I came back.
I have quite clearly been contrasting them. Mutations are mutations, but as I say, one is random and bred, the other is engineered.
What makes engineering any more of a concern than randomness?
But much more to my point -- it isn't simply what gets cultivated en masse. The point is these mutations happen all the time. Literally all the time things are being randomly "mutated".
But I'm supposed to be concerned that these tomatoes, which have been tested and eaten long before they're put on market, are all going to contain some mysterious harmful mutation, from this one modification that they all share? Why? It's not a legit concern. It simply isn't, from any scientific standpoint.
I can give scientific reasons as to why pesticides are harmful, and something you should be concerned about.
Contrarily, there is no scientific reason to say that a genetic-modification, shared by millions of grown-produce which have been tested and eaten, should in any way be a concern to anyone's health or the environment. No one has given one.
And it genuinely peeves me, because people used to talk about pesticides the way they're talking about GMOs now -- specifically when it comes to labeling. And we didn't win that battle. At all. And now a real concern, that has scientific merit, has been abandoned by the public in lieu of sensationalized bullshit.
I mean, the concern is real. You have to be able to demonstrate that anything you put in does not have harmful effects, and some GMO things do fail that test. The problem is that some people don't believe the tests are sufficient.
The other, bigger problem is that mutations achieved the old fashioned way aren't subject to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny, yet are inexplicably considered safer.
We've all understood by now that things mutate all the time, we get it. The difference between breeding and genetic engineering is the difference between a mule and a rocket, or a musket and an automatic rifle. The speed of technology can dramatically change what impact they have on society and how we interact with them, so there needs to be some caution involved.
On March 15 2016 13:17 Nyxisto wrote: Genetic engineering obviously does what breeding does over the course of a hundred years in a minute. That GMOs with sufficient regulation are safe isn't really a matter of debate, but that genetic engineering is just the same as Mendel breeding peas in his monastery is pretty ridiculous.
This thread has really gone to shit lately. I don't know why I came back.
I have quite clearly been contrasting them. Mutations are mutations, but as I say, one is random and bred, the other is engineered.
What makes engineering any more of a concern than randomness?
But much more to my point -- it isn't simply what gets cultivated en masse. The point is these mutations happen all the time. Literally all the time things are being randomly "mutated".
But I'm supposed to be concerned that these tomatoes, which have been tested and eaten long before they're put on market, are all going to contain some mysterious harmful mutation, from this one modification that they all share? Why? It's not a legit concern. It simply isn't, from any scientific standpoint.
I can give scientific reasons as to why pesticides are harmful, and something you should be concerned about.
Contrarily, there is no scientific reason to say that a genetic-modification, shared by millions of grown-produce which have been tested and eaten, should in any way be a concern to anyone's health or the environment. No one has given one.
I have given more than one and you haven't responded to any of them. But by all means keep asking "what makes it any different?"
You said you were concerned with chemical use on plants. The majority of GMO products are designed as part and parcel of a chemical-based, intensive farming practice to increase yields. That should be reason enough for you to want to know which products are GM, given that labeling what chemicals we put on plants for herbicides and pesticides is no doubt going to be even more vociferously protested by the Ag lobby as unduly prejudicial.
I think we should be told not only that the products are GM but also what genes were changed, how they affect the phenotype, and how they differ from other cultivars.
EPT
