In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 23 2014 02:07 ZasZ. wrote: There are legitimate arguments to be made for being opposed to GMO foods, but the pro-labeling movement doesn't seem to be making them. Instead, I hear a lot of "it's unnatural" and "I heard it isn't safe" without any basis for these opinions. These viewpoints are eerily similar to the religious or traditionalist arguments against gay marriage and abortion.
distrusting things you don't understand is one of the most eminently rational of all human behaviors.
and a rational behavior from a position of ignorance is still ignorance.
Believing it possible to escape ignorance is the highest form of ignorance. The rational response is therefore how to act given your constitutive ignorance
whats irrational is trusting in things that you belive that other peoplw understand. Whats rational is distrusting things you dont understand and realizing that the people who supposedly understand them actually dont. Like genetic engineering and high finance.
are we gonna go with baseless relativism now.
beats your naive technocratic positivism
what I'm saying is not a relativism however. If anything I am appealing to the Great Western Tradition of the wise and undeservedly forgotten doctrine of hubris and nemesis
I think I have a new standard for judging my "Not all Feminists/Liberals are like that" and those that have really gone around the bend. Apparently a school district in Nebraska (of all places) gave materials from gender spectrum to their teachers on the subject of gender inclusiveness (btw I'm already loving the term). The alleged document is here with scattered reporting like National Review and a snopes article
1. Avoid asking kids to line up as boys or girls or separating them by gender. Instead, use things like "odd and even birth date,"or "Which would you choose: skateboards or bikes/milk or juice/dogs or cats/summer or winter/talking or listening.” Invite students to come up with choices themselves. Consider using tools like the "appointment schedule" to form pairs or groups. Always ask yourself, "Will this configuration create a gendered space?"
6. Point out and inquire when you hear others referencing gender in a binary manner. Ask things like, "Hmmm. That is interesting. Can you say more about that?" or "What makes you say that? I think of it a little differently." Provide counter-narratives that challenge students to think more expansively about their notions of gender.
In my book, if you regard this change as long overdue and critically important in helping elementary school kids enjoy gender openness, you're already around the bend. If you regard something like this as just a flash point and straight silly, maybe even a ploy by conservatives to ridicule liberal education policy, then I feel for your point of view. Any boys, girls, both, or neither out there that think this closed-minded cis-heterosexual male is just behind the times? I think the full list of the suggestions, if you read them, is hard to take seriously, particularly if not run by PTA and parents first. (As an aside, I'm quite prepared to be wrong about NAMbLA and others waiting in line after current efforts on gay marriage, from the opposite shore of issues)
not so much behind the time as though it is a matter of culture fashion, but simply ignorant about basic facts of gender and social mechanisms surrounding it. feel free to wear your ignorance on the sleeve though, pretty funny.
Sen. Jeff Merkley says he plans to vote for a ballot measure on Election Day to legalize marijuana in Oregon.
"I lean in support of it," the Democratic senator told TPM in an interview on Wednesday.
Measure 91 would green-light marijuana for recreational purposes in Oregon and authorize the state to regulate and tax it. Colorado and Washington enacted similar measures in 2012.
"I think folks on both sides of the argument make a good case," Merkley said. "And there is concern about a series of new products — and we don't have a real track record from Colorado and Washington. But I feel on balance that we spend a lot of money on our criminal justice system in the wrong places and I lean in favor of this ballot measure."
A vote for it would make Merkley the first U.S. senator to support making marijuana legal in his state.
On October 23 2014 10:25 oneofthem wrote: not so much behind the time as though it is a matter of culture fashion, but simply ignorant about basic facts of gender and social mechanisms surrounding it. feel free to wear your ignorance on the sleeve though, pretty funny.
I've somewhat come to terms that more and more of what I thought would be widely accepted in American society are now questioned and disputed by sometimes smaller and sometimes larger sections of it. I mean, perhaps a decade ago I would've thought you mad if you advocated elementary school teachers to prompt kids to question their own sex and the typical male-female designation. As ironic as it is now, purposefully using boys/girls/both/other to refer to five year olds might make ME assume they were ignorant about the basic facts of gender and wanted others to likewise be ... but oh have the times changed. If its a culture war or some kind of positive cultural advancement, my views and the views of others that think like me appear to be slowly losing dominance. That might be the criterion for that shift towards the minority viewpoint; that a casual person would think another's "way things are" is wearing his ignorance on their sleeve, granted similarity in age.
I saw that news story slip past on a blog, and thought how long is it before there's not outrage that a single district would propose such obviously (haha) damaging suggestions for schoolchild education, and when the last private elementary school adopts similar rules after legislation or court rulings.
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this:
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
//edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway.
Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist.
But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right!
You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken.
Better analogy: You are having a witch hunt, and a very rich producer of brooms and spiky hats spends shitloads of money trying to convince you that witches don't exist. I would be highly suspicious of that guy. He might be correct, but he also has such a vested self-interest in the situation that you really shouldn't trust him. Not because he is rich, but because he is obviously biased. The fact that he is spending a lot of money to propegate his money is not even that important, though the fact that he CAN basically just spend a lot of money to make laws IS a big problem, because even if this one rich guy is correct, what about the other rich guy that sells snake oil and wants to make sure that you can get the cure for all illnesses prescribed from your local doctor, because it is very much the best solution to any medical problem.
You're skeptical of the broom and hat salesman. Lovely.
Why aren't you skeptical of the mob?
If only there was an impartial source... oh wait, there is. Why don't you listen to that source?
Nah, better to stay ignorant. I hear that's bliss...
On October 23 2014 04:22 Doublemint wrote:
On October 23 2014 03:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 14:09 Doublemint wrote: Boy this thread moved quickly. ad GMO label controversy:
On October 22 2014 03:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 02:47 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
On October 22 2014 00:51 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
Without the background noise, someone reasonable actually could agree with your line of thought.
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that?
There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 (source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
Such faith. I am moved to tears. Not sure why though.
On October 22 2014 06:22 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:
On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction.
And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that.
I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable.
I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong.
A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment.
Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy.
We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
In fact it actually did. Better campaigns with like 3-4 times the amount of money from just a handful of special interest people trumped the campaign of 13k small donators and one big one. the no gmo label campaign had 4 individual(sic!) donors. And then there's this:
The No on 522 campaign has a decidedly different kind of backing. For all their TV ads full of amber waves of grain and local farmers, their entire donor list can be counted on your fingers. The top five are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—a conglomerate of food manufacturers—Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Bayer CropScience, and Dow AgroSciences.
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
That's got to be just a (rather obtuse) joke. Right?!... + Show Spoiler +
kind of hearing this song in the background while reading some lines disguised as arguments. ("Jonny's an American") :p
//edit: god dammit, that's what I get for having no coffee yet. messed up a bit with my own interpretation of the donation, though the link explains it better anyway.
Imagine a popular witch hunt where a local rich guy is trying to tell you that it's a provable fact that magic, and by extension witches, don't exist.
But... but... he's rich! He must be wrong! But... but... the witch hunt is popular! It must be right!
You're effectively deciding right and wrong based upon who the speaker is, rather than what is spoken.
I am hearing very clearly. And the GMA (Grocery manufacturing association) is not the rich guy trying to save innocent women from being burned(= the label apparently).
When did the faceless multi billion dollar company become the hero, did I miss that meeting?
When did the lynch mob become the hero? Did I miss that meeting?
Nobody is lynching anybody... or suggesting anything even REMOTELY CLOSE to it. This is a pointless discussion where just different world views are clashing. America is a fascinating and highly diverse country, but when I read things like that I am just glad I am not living there.
I'm not calling it a lynch mob. It's a matter of believing something is true because a group of angry people say so, or looking to the actual facts. Sorry to hear that facts don't matter to Europeans
Or argumentation without completely misconstruing the facts to Americans. Concerned citizens craving for information are suddenly becoming "angry" or the "lynch mob out to get Monsanto".
On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote: i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
Can you vote on the labels being added? No you cant. And in the latest election people voted democratic,wich I assume is the party that is more in favour of labeling (or should I say, less against it) then the republicans.
Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls
Learn more about the costs? just fearmongering the population, there are no cost to labeling. Off course there will be costs if the public starts to buy different foods and the whole foodchain changes,but those are not a result of the labeling itself,they are the result of the preferences of the public.
And then this crap about the public not understanding what it is so no use in adding it? Do you think people know what e35 and e16 and whatever codes they use on the ingredients list are? People know pretty well what gmo means, the name explains itself.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
-want to know so people can make an informed choise. its not only people who are afraid of safety isues that might not want to buy gmo crops,i can imagine deep religious people not wanting to buy them either,or people who do not want to buy products from Monsanto for whatever reason.
Why are you so desperate to take away the choice for people? Are you afraid people will make the "wrong" choice? Well,might as well completely abandon democracy then if some choices of the public are wrong and should be prevented at all costs. On one hand you say people vote with their wallets but in this case you try prevent them from voting with their wallets.
Everything to protect the revenue coming from the billion dollar patents from Monsanto,that is the one and only reason for not labeling. well nvm all this,i see my reply is a bit late.
Btw. there already was most of the latest Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode. The missing part regarding the supreme court and how to make the public more interested in it is totally brilliant.
Enjoy.
The Verge already did a reporting on a supreme court case with this dog footage.
in the case of meta level commentary on the disagreement rather than the content of the disagreement, you have to actually know what the fuck is going on first, or else it is just devoid of any content. take bookwyrm and danglars 's high minded commentary on the value of doubt when it comes to GMOs, and the value of crankiness when it comes to kids being educated in basic social facts, seems like they've already settled on views and are commentating from that height.
a tl-ballot is in the works to decide if you and your pen pals should be required to label your posts with 'gmo-friendly' as well. maybe some sort of symbol next to your name too, for easy recognition.
for the record: my vote is for sale, let the tl-lobby-dollars start rolling in.
An unusual government moratorium aimed at controversial research with high-risk viruses has halted important public health research, scientists told an advisory committee to the federal government on Wednesday.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said Friday that the federal government will, for now, not fund any new research proposals that might make three particular viruses more virulent or contagious. The three viruses are those that give rise to influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
The White House also said it would encourage "those currently conducting this type of work — whether federally funded or not — to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed."
Some researchers who study these germs say they received "cease-and-desist" letters from their funder, the National Institutes of Health.
The moratorium has hit efforts to develop a small-animal model for MERS, the troubling virus that's recently emerged in the Middle East, says Kanta Subbarao, a biologist who studies influenza, SARS, and MERS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
She notes that currently scientists have no rodent models to use for testing drugs or other treatments for MERS. Her group developed such a model for SARS by creating a form of the virus that makes mice sicker, and she wants to do the same for MERS.
On October 22 2014 00:41 oneofthem wrote: i think the haber process is still in its infancy so let's put a haber process ammonia label on everything raised from fertilizers made from CHEMICAL ammonia. who's with me
It has been over 100 years since the Haber-Bosch process was invented, and the pros and cons of what it has done for the agricultural industry are well documented. Don't you think your analogy is just a little hyperbolic?
I have to ask, do you work for Monsanto or something? You seem really emotionally invested in this topic, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. I'm all for GMOs and think they are the future of agriculture, but we need to work to educate people about why they shouldn't be scared of them, not withhold information that they are asking for, that's just a way to engender more ill will.
And Danglars, comparing this to Prop 8 is kind of laughable as well. Sure, if the Supreme Court finds that mandatory labeling for GMOs is unconstitutional, we can all say that the public didn't know any better. The ballot initiative process exists to reflect the will of the masses, and the courts are there to tell the masses when they are wrong. Let it play out like its supposed to.
it is even german! must be evil.
the analogy is good. don't bother me about it.
What a fantastic argument. You're not even trying anymore and are just repeating "labeling is bad" over and over. We get that there are costs associated with labeling, but are struggling to see your viewpoint as to why these costs shouldn't be incurred when over 90% of the public wants the labels.
If 90% of the public really wanted the labels they'd vote that way and it would be a done deal. Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
Can you vote on the labels being added? No you cant. And in the latest election people voted democratic,wich I assume is the party that is more in favour of labeling (or should I say, less against it) then the republicans.
Turns out, when a vote comes up people learn more about the costs and that the benefits are really non-existent and support falls
Learn more about the costs? just fearmongering the population, there are no cost to labeling. Off course there will be costs if the public starts to buy different foods and the whole foodchain changes,but those are not a result of the labeling itself,they are the result of the preferences of the public.
And then this crap about the public not understanding what it is so no use in adding it? Do you think people know what e35 and e16 and whatever codes they use on the ingredients list are? People know pretty well what gmo means, the name explains itself.
There doesn't seem to be a good argument out there for labeling. The only arguments are "right to know" and "it's popular". Both rely on misinformation - the idea that GMOs aren't safe and therefore this is information you need to know.
-want to know so people can make an informed choise. its not only people who are afraid of safety isues that might not want to buy gmo crops,i can imagine deep religious people not wanting to buy them either,or people who do not want to buy products from Monsanto for whatever reason.
Why are you so desperate to take away the choice for people? Are you afraid people will make the "wrong" choice? Well,might as well completely abandon democracy then if some choices of the public are wrong and should be prevented at all costs. On one hand you say people vote with their wallets but in this case you try prevent them from voting with their wallets.
Everything to protect the revenue coming from the billion dollar patents from Monsanto,that is the one and only reason for not labeling. well nvm all this,i see my reply is a bit late.
Yes, people have been able to vote on labeling. Many states have put it to a ballot vote.
On the issue of costs, to say that there are no costs to labeling is wrong. This shouldn't be in question. Complying with the regulation will require private parties in the supply chain to engage in activities that have costs (from the Washington State Academy of Sciences): + Show Spoiler +
Note: Many of these activities have to be repeated multiple times in the supply chain!
Testing systems and supporting paper trails Product and production documentation Separate harvesting or cleaning systems Separate storage, handling & transportation systems or cleaning systems Change contracting arrangements Separate processing lines or cleaning systems Change inventory management systems Create and manage new SKUs Create or modify labels Additional shelf space Operator training Liability insurance
Additionally, government agencies will have costs related to inspection and enforcement. Oregon state estimated a $6.5mm startup cost and $11mm repeating annual cost. Maybe you think these costs are small - yet they exist!!
Having the labeling also likely reduces choice. If you want to avoid GMOs you can already find voluntary labeling that allows you to do so. Conversely, mandatory labeling has the potential to limit GMO choices.
I'm also going to add an important point to the discussion. Virtually all food is GM. GMOs are only special in the way in which genetic information is modified.
III. Differences Between GMOs and non-GMOs The GMOs on the market today differ from non-GMOs in that GMOs contain a single or at most several genes from any source that are introduced into the plant/animal and confer the desired property on the organism such as resistance to herbicides or pests. These plants/animals products would be subject to mandatory labeling. Oils from GM plants contain no protein and therefore in themselves are not genetically modified. However, processed foods containing any oils from GM plants such as corn, soybeans, and canola would be subject to labeling. Genetic modification also occurs in non-GMOs after mutagenesis of seeds followed by conventional breeding and selection for the desired property. Such plants/animals products would not be subject to mandatory labeling.
So again, the gmo label gives you crappy information. GMO free will still likely contain GMOs within whatever tolerance level is enforced. Moreover, the non-GMO food has still been genetically modified, just with a different method.
the food and agriculture world is pretty complex. to say one thing is not bad is not the same as saying there are no problems. it's just very counterproductive to establish a party line sort of dynamic where good and bad issues are taken up on their ideological leaning without discriminating actual facts. on the whole GM is not at all a threat, while chemical contamination of ground water from stuff like atrazine may be a serious issue.
When I buy vegetable, I check their origin. It's an information that is always given, and it has no impact on the quality of the food : I do that because I prevent myself from buying vegetable from countries that have bad labor pratice / economic practice / environmental practice. I don't want my money to be feeding such practice, and I hope (while knowing it's completly ridiculous) that by my selective buying I will promote better practice in said countries. It has nothing to do with the idea of a threat of the said food in itself and I saw no people in this thread saying that consuming GM food will increase you chance to get cancer : it is the business practice and the agricultural practice that is in question, and the impact of those practice on the world at large. GMO, most of the time, comes with a whole package, that goes from shady legal practice - altho necessary, to a certain extent, to assure profit - intensive farming and monoculture that, from my perspective, is not beneficial to our society. It is for that kind of reason that I'd prefer a label - and yes it's hypocritical because there are plenty of other goods that bear the same kind or even more problems than the production of GMO, but on those I have no knowledge.
There is also a complete difference between the fact that farmer select the best crop at the end of each year and end up genetically selecting the best strain, with the GMO, for obvious reasons - what it mean for the balance of power between the farmer and the food industry for exemple. Again, Jonny showing what he knows best, nitpicking others and making broad and easy metaphore to support his point of view.
out of all the politically objectionable practices used to obtain your grocery(not to mention other items), genetic engineering is not high on that list. let's face it most of the concern is over health effects and that, not the political stuff, is the justification for compulsory labeling. a politically good cause like slave labor to produce your cloth doesn't get as much run as this GMO stuff, because the latter is taken up by food snobs in the first world and lead to popular conspiracies in other places that disrupt actually helpful technology from spreading.
On October 24 2014 07:10 oneofthem wrote: out of all the politically objectionable practices used to obtain your grocery(not to mention other items), genetic engineering is not high on that list. let's face it most of the concern is over health effects and that, not the political stuff, is the justification for compulsory labeling. a politically good cause like slave labor to produce your cloth doesn't get as much run as this GMO stuff, because the latter is taken up by food snobs in the first world and lead to popular conspiracies in other places that disrupt actually helpful technology from spreading.
There is a huge difference with production of clothes tho : there is no or almost no ethically okay substitutions for clothes since a substitution would not be possible without some kind of protectionnism. Meanwhile, there are still plenty of fairly independant and non intensive farmers around the world that produce food at a good enough price (not necessarily bio, in France there's plenty of "reasonnable" farmers - it's the official term - that certify using less than a certain rate of pesticide, giving the entire information on the production process to the consumers and the workers, etc.). That giving money to those guys doesn't match up with your own ideology of "let's help this helpful technology spreading" is secondary to my consumption concerns.
And yes, most people don't have the luxury to take the time and see the big picture, so they resort to quick and easy justification for their actions : unnatural behavior, good for business, etc.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JktKBYR.png)
approved. masterful piece of engineering, that shroom 
