Support GMO foods

[Jarhyn]

It's not so much different from that whole 'irradiation' debacle a few years back. People were freaking out because they didn't understand that irradiation is light, and that when the source is turned off or blocked, the radiation is gone, just the same as a room goes dark when you flip the switch. People wanted to know if food had ever been irradiated so they could not-buy irradiated food, but the technology made everyone's life better and healthier.

The thing is, anything that is not culturally accepted, when put on a label, will be a basis for pushing that thing out of the market. The only way to make something culturally acceptable is to make people put up with it long enough that they cease to care. People are disgustingly conservative that way. Years ago it was about 'radiation', but before that it was 'chemicals', and before that it was 'american-ness'. It wasn't very long ago that ramen got to be called a 'noodle', and taken off the scary sounding 'noodle substitute' label.

The point of these labels is not to inform, it is to misinform, because in the context of our culture such labels necessarily carry a non-trivial exformation with any mandated label: '...and that's bad'.

 

[Axulus]

Should the foods also have a label requirement indicating which astrological period the ingredients were harvested in, so that consumers who believe in astrology can avoid the ones harvested in the periods there horoscope indicates they should avoid? Customers should be able to decide for themselves if they want to buy foods harvested during Libra or Scorpio, no? It would be very strange for you to object to such accurate labeling and consumer choice.

If it helps shift product, why not? The question is whether we should support making such labelling illegal, to prevent those products produced under less desirable astrological signs being disadvantaged. That's what the GMO companies were campaigning for. We already have labelling indicating whether food is prepared in a manner compatible with various religious beliefs (Halal, Kosher, etc., so technically astrology isn't much of a stretch.

Unless you think that government should be dictating to customers what are and are not valid concerns when buying a product. We could get rid of all those 'not made from concentrate' labels for a start, since there's no scientific evidence that it changes the taste. And if you can't taste the difference between horse and pig, what possible reason is there to require accurate labels on burgers? I mean, meat's meat, right?

You are bringing up strawmen. No one in this thread is against any sort of voluntarily labeling. If a company wants to label their product GMO-free or organic (and these statements are truthful), they can have at it. What the GMO industry wants is completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Togo]

Well, if the reason for getting rid of labels is that we know that customers won't buy a product that they know is made from GMOs, then how is making such a label illegal anything other than, if not a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead?

And if we know that labeling that a product was harvested during Libra will cause some customers to avoid buying it, then how is making such a label not mandatory anything other than, if not a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead?

If customers really care when the food was harvested, then retailers can't fulfil that need unless they know when it was harvested. In that case, campaigning to ban such labels would be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

If you're genuinely arguing that consumers should only be able to distinguish between products on government-approved grounds, then come out and say it. If not, then what's the problem?

 

[Malintent]

Pharmaceutical companies are not trying to save millions of people from deadly diseases by manufacturing vaccine drugs. They are just trying to provide a product that they can sell for money.

Vaccines represent less than 1% of drug revenue for pharmaceuticals. There is no money in producing vaccines. People get 1 - 3 shots in their lifetime and then never consume the product again. All the money is in drug maintenance programs... drugs you take every day, like heart medications, diabetes, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

And if we know that labeling that a product was harvested during Libra will cause some customers to avoid buying it, then how is making such a label not mandatory anything other than, if not a lie, a deliberate attempt to mislead?

If customers really care when the food was harvested, then retailers can't fulfil that need unless they know when it was harvested. In that case, campaigning to ban such labels would be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

If you're genuinely arguing that consumers should only be able to distinguish between products on government-approved grounds, then come out and say it. If not, then what's the problem?

He is against forcing people to label their food as 'dangerous'. Because that's what government mandated labels mean in the context of western culture. You can't have the label without it being read as an implication that the food is somehow 'bad' or 'tainted'.

Given the science (thanks, bilby!) of GMO, it would be far more apt to force labels of 'non-GMO' foods to say 'the seller of this product has no clue what genetics it contains' or 'genetically untested' or some other true statement about the uncertain content of the product.

 

[Togo]

It's not so much different from that whole 'irradiation' debacle a few years back. People were freaking out because they didn't understand that irradiation is light, and that when the source is turned off or blocked, the radiation is gone, just the same as a room goes dark when you flip the switch. People wanted to know if food had ever been irradiated so they could not-buy irradiated food, but the technology made everyone's life better and healthier.

The thing is, anything that is not culturally accepted, when put on a label, will be a basis for pushing that thing out of the market. The only way to make something culturally acceptable is to make people put up with it long enough that they cease to care. People are disgustingly conservative that way. Years ago it was about 'radiation', but before that it was 'chemicals', and before that it was 'american-ness'. It wasn't very long ago that ramen got to be called a 'noodle', and taken off the scary sounding 'noodle substitute' label.

The point of these labels is not to inform, it is to misinform, because in the context of our culture such labels necessarily carry a non-trivial exformation with any mandated label: '...and that's bad'.

The same argument works just as well to ban ingrediants listings, because most people don't understand E-numbers, and many feel threatened by them. Ditto warning labels in matresses, fire escape drills, and so on. If you assume a consumer is a frightened idiot, then you're going to be eliminating most of the consumer safety legislation. I'm not convinced that's warrented.

 

[laughing dog]

Your assertions that this study is full of bogus costs are not convincing. Maybe I should contact the authors and see what they have to say to your assertion that the study is bogus.

You should. Basically, they mix fixed with marginal costs. You seem to be under the delusion that just because a written number from a study is necessarily valid.

And I assume you can point us to a non-bogus study? Because right now your statements that the costs are negligible is empty air.

Fair enough. My empty air versus your bullshit.

And consumers are informed, the GMO-free foods and organic foods are voluntarily labeled. I find it fascinating that you have failed to address this point.

There is no reason to address irrelevant points. How is that relevant to the food that is not labelled?

I also ask you the same question I asked Togo, would you be against a labeling requirement to list which astrological period each ingredient was harvested during? Why or why not? Are you against informing consumers and market efficiency?

If consumers thought it relevant then I would not be against it. The issue is whether the information is relevant to the consumer, not whether it is "information".

Just hot air and mere assertion if you can't back this up with a rigorous study. Can you please provide a link, or is empirical data not relevant?

Are you seriously arguing that the demand and supply for any item is not relevant in determining what portion (if any) of a cost increase is ultimately reflected in the market price? It is a generalization of the  Tax_incidence analysis taught in principles of microeconomics.

And you are okay with deliberate lying and withholding information on the astrological harvest period from consumers because you don't care about market efficiency. Or are you actually in support of that too? One can't tell with you.

Answered above, but I will repeat it. If consumers find it relevant then I am not okay with it. If they do not find it relevant, then it has nothing to do with market efficiency. I noticed you brought this up to deflect from the internal contradiction in your position: an advocate of market efficiency arguing against making markets more efficient.

 

[Axulus]

It's not so much different from that whole 'irradiation' debacle a few years back. People were freaking out because they didn't understand that irradiation is light, and that when the source is turned off or blocked, the radiation is gone, just the same as a room goes dark when you flip the switch. People wanted to know if food had ever been irradiated so they could not-buy irradiated food, but the technology made everyone's life better and healthier.

The thing is, anything that is not culturally accepted, when put on a label, will be a basis for pushing that thing out of the market. The only way to make something culturally acceptable is to make people put up with it long enough that they cease to care. People are disgustingly conservative that way. Years ago it was about 'radiation', but before that it was 'chemicals', and before that it was 'american-ness'. It wasn't very long ago that ramen got to be called a 'noodle', and taken off the scary sounding 'noodle substitute' label.

The point of these labels is not to inform, it is to misinform, because in the context of our culture such labels necessarily carry a non-trivial exformation with any mandated label: '...and that's bad'.

The same argument works just as well to ban ingrediants listings, because most people don't understand E-numbers, and many feel threatened by them. Ditto warning labels in matresses, fire escape drills, and so on. If you assume a consumer is a frightened idiot, then you're going to be eliminating most of the consumer safety legislation. I'm not convinced that's warrented.

No one (on this board) is talking about banning anything or making anything illegal. Why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[Togo]

If it helps shift product, why not? The question is whether we should support making such labelling illegal, to prevent those products produced under less desirable astrological signs being disadvantaged. That's what the GMO companies were campaigning for. We already have labelling indicating whether food is prepared in a manner compatible with various religious beliefs (Halal, Kosher, etc., so technically astrology isn't much of a stretch.

Unless you think that government should be dictating to customers what are and are not valid concerns when buying a product. We could get rid of all those 'not made from concentrate' labels for a start, since there's no scientific evidence that it changes the taste. And if you can't taste the difference between horse and pig, what possible reason is there to require accurate labels on burgers? I mean, meat's meat, right?

You are bringing up strawmen. No one in this thread is against any sort of voluntarily labeling.

That's a point that's worth making explicit. Because what Monsanto and the others were campaigning for was to make such labels illegal, as a form of trade discrimination. If you're opposing Monsanto on this point, then it's worth saying what the differences are between your position and that of the GMO lobby.

If a company wants to label their product GMO-free or organic (and these statements are truthful), they can have at it.

Only if they can actually trace whether it's made from GMO or not. Which requires either the suppliers to label all their products by source, or requires the company to be allowed to descriminate against suppliers that don't label. For example, in my local supermarket, all products are GMO-free or they don't get in the store. In effect that means banning most US suppliers. If you're ok with that, then you're ok with measures that still in effect cripple the ability of GMO companies to get their product to market and allow those with views on GMO food to push GMO food out of the market. Which is what we're seeing in Europe, and explicitly what the OP was about.

If I've got the logic right, then it seems like you're complaining about measures that don't actually exist. If I've not, then there's still a confusion somewhere. Can we clarify?

 

[Jarhyn]

We require ingredients listings on all food products, because of necessity in tracking allergens. And the situation fails in the analogy because all products must do it. You have in fact even proved my assertion: you believe that it is a. Matter of public safety, and thus you think that GMOs are indeed something people should be scared into avoiding. It is anti-scientifc, and counter to the plain fact that GMOs are to date better than traditional farming in the vast makority of circumstances.

 

[Trodon]

Scientific advances have often had unexpected bad results. How can we be sure that eating genetically modified foods will not have bad results several generations from now? We can't.

At the very least, people should know when foods have been genetically modified, and when they have not been. Those who are willing to be used as experimental animals for these foods can go on an eat them. Those of us who are not willing should know what to avoid.

The bad effects of genetically modified foods may take decades before they are obvious. In the United States cigarettes became popular during the 1920's. It was not until the 1950's that people began to suspect that cigarettes were dangerous. It was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General's Report on the dangers of smoking cigarettes was published. By then hundreds of thousands of people had died from cancer, heart disease, and strokes from cigarette smoking.

 

[laughing dog]

We require ingredients listings on all food products, because of necessity in tracking allergens. And the situation fails in the analogy because all products must do it. You have in fact even proved my assertion: you believe that it is a. Matter of public safety, and thus you think that GMOs are indeed something people should be scared into avoiding. It is anti-scientifc, and counter to the plain fact that GMOs are to date better than traditional farming in the vast makority of circumstances.

Your conclusions do not follow from your faulty premises. Ingredients are listed for a variety of reasons - some for allergies, some because of religious dietary restrictions, etc.... Wanting consumers to have information they find useful is a good idea. Your conclusion that it is "anti-scientific" is irrelevant, since consumers are permitted (hell, even encouraged in some cases) to make decisions on consumption on non-scientific grounds.

BTW, the very same arguments you and others are making now would have been relevant 60 years ago with asbestos or cigarettes.

Personally, I have no opinion about effects of GMO foods on humans or the environment - I prefer my food to be tasty and free of known poisons.

 

[Axulus]

If consumers thought it relevant then I would not be against it. The issue is whether the information is relevant to the consumer, not whether it is "information".

Woah, wait a minute, is your whole argument just a defense of democracy? That if a majority of people vote "yes", you are in favor of democracy being respected?

You could've saved a whole lot of space if that is your position. I was under the illusion that you personally supported the label requirement regardless of the position of the majority. Now you are turning it into "if the majority wants it, I would not be against it".

Or am I misreading you? If just one person finds certain information relevant, you support a mandatory labeling requirement for that information? If not, then what threshold are you using?

 

[Axulus]

You are bringing up strawmen. No one in this thread is against any sort of voluntarily labeling.

That's a point that's worth making explicit. Because what Monsanto and the others were campaigning for was to make such labels illegal, as a form of trade discrimination. If you're opposing Monsanto on this point, then it's worth saying what the differences are between your position and that of the GMO lobby.

If a company wants to label their product GMO-free or organic (and these statements are truthful), they can have at it.

Only if they can actually trace whether it's made from GMO or not. Which requires either the suppliers to label all their products by source, or requires the company to be allowed to descriminate against suppliers that don't label. For example, in my local supermarket, all products are GMO-free or they don't get in the store. In effect that means banning most US suppliers. If you're ok with that, then you're ok with measures that still in effect cripple the ability of GMO companies to get their product to market and allow those with views on GMO food to push GMO food out of the market. Which is what we're seeing in Europe, and explicitly what the OP was about.

If I've got the logic right, then it seems like you're complaining about measures that don't actually exist. If I've not, then there's still a confusion somewhere. Can we clarify?

My opposition is to a _mandatory_ requirement to label GMO products. Meaning that it is illegal to _not_ label a product containing GMO ingredients as containing such.

I have no opposition to any product voluntarily labeled with anything so long as the statements are truthful. I have no problem with stores or other customers refusing to do business with any supplier that doesn't provide the information they want or doesn't have the ability to track the information they want.

 

[Jarhyn]

We require ingredients listings on all food products, because of necessity in tracking allergens. And the situation fails in the analogy because all products must do it. You have in fact even proved my assertion: you believe that it is a. Matter of public safety, and thus you think that GMOs are indeed something people should be scared into avoiding. It is anti-scientifc, and counter to the plain fact that GMOs are to date better than traditional farming in the vast makority of circumstances.

Your conclusions do not follow from your faulty premises. Ingredients are listed for a variety of reasons - some for allergies, some because of religious dietary restrictions, etc.... Wanting consumers to have information they find useful is a good idea. Your conclusion that it is "anti-scientific" is irrelevant, since consumers are permitted (hell, even encouraged in some cases) to make decisions on consumption on non-scientific grounds.

BTW, the very same arguments you and others are making now would have been relevant 60 years ago with asbestos or cigarettes.

Personally, I have no opinion about effects of GMO foods on humans or the environment - I prefer my food to be tasty and free of known poisons.

There were, are, and continue to be research, peer reviewed and in good standing, establishing correlations between asbestos/cigarettes and cancer and lung disease. Replicated studies. mandating 'this is bad' labels for those products was warranted by the facts and research. There is no similar correlation for GMOs. The analogy fails.

Think of the effect that ingredients labels would have had if we had discriminated upon which ingredients meant a label was required. Voluntary labels mean 'good'. Universally applied labels are neutral. Selectively required labels mean 'bad'.

When you can show a link to negative health effects from GMO products that aren't merely 'GMO consumption was detectable', say 'BT potato consumption correlated with cancer rate of ( n > .01)% per capita with p < .01' then I'll immediately recommend pulling that product entirely. But right now you merely have the power of WOO on your side, and in a responsible society, we don't let woo wag the dog.

 

[laughing dog]

If consumers thought it relevant then I would not be against it. The issue is whether the information is relevant to the consumer, not whether it is "information".

Woah, wait a minute, is your whole argument just a defense of democracy? That if a majority of people vote "yes", you are in favor of democracy being respected?

You could've saved a whole lot of space if that is your position. I was under the illusion that you personally supported the label requirement regardless of the position of the majority. Now you are turning it into "if the majority wants it, I would not be against it".

Or am I misreading you? If just one person finds certain information relevant, you support a mandatory labeling requirement for that information? If not, then what threshold are you using?

You are completely misreading me. Nothing in any of my responses is directly related to democracy - the argument is about supporting one of the basic foundations of market efficiency: easy access to relevant information to consumers (notice the plural). In the real world, that principle should be balanced against a number of other factors. If only one person out of millions thinks something is relevant, then it would be silly to invoke that principle without considering other factors. It is called a "rule of reason", not "kneejerk adherence to ideology".

 

[laughing dog]

Your conclusions do not follow from your faulty premises. Ingredients are listed for a variety of reasons - some for allergies, some because of religious dietary restrictions, etc.... Wanting consumers to have information they find useful is a good idea. Your conclusion that it is "anti-scientific" is irrelevant, since consumers are permitted (hell, even encouraged in some cases) to make decisions on consumption on non-scientific grounds.

BTW, the very same arguments you and others are making now would have been relevant 60 years ago with asbestos or cigarettes.

Personally, I have no opinion about effects of GMO foods on humans or the environment - I prefer my food to be tasty and free of known poisons.

There were, are, and continue to be research, peer reviewed and in good standing, establishing correlations between asbestos/cigarettes and cancer and lung disease. Replicated studies. mandating 'this is bad' labels for those products was warranted by the facts and research. There is no similar correlation for GMOs. The analogy fails.

Sorry, 60 years ago there was no research conclusively linking asbestos or cancer to health problems, so your responses totally missed the point.

Think of the effect that ingredients labels would have had if we had discriminated upon which ingredients meant a label was required. Voluntary labels mean 'good'. Universally applied labels are neutral. Selectively required labels mean 'bad'.

Not in the world I live in.

When you can show a link to negative health effects from GMO products that aren't merely 'GMO consumption was detectable', say 'BT potato consumption correlated with cancer rate of ( n > .01)% per capita with p < .01' then I'll immediately recommend pulling that product entirely. But right now you merely have the power of WOO on your side, and in a responsible society, we don't let woo wag the dog.

As I pointed out, your judgment as to relevant information does not matter.

 

[Axulus]

Woah, wait a minute, is your whole argument just a defense of democracy? That if a majority of people vote "yes", you are in favor of democracy being respected?

You could've saved a whole lot of space if that is your position. I was under the illusion that you personally supported the label requirement regardless of the position of the majority. Now you are turning it into "if the majority wants it, I would not be against it".

Or am I misreading you? If just one person finds certain information relevant, you support a mandatory labeling requirement for that information? If not, then what threshold are you using?

You are completely misreading me. Nothing in any of my responses is directly related to democracy - the argument is about supporting one of the basic foundations of market efficiency: easy access to relevant information to consumers (notice the plural). In the real world, that principle should be balanced against a number of other factors. If only one person out of millions thinks something is relevant, then it would be silly to invoke that principle without considering other factors. It is called a "rule of reason", not "kneejerk adherence to ideology".

So what is your criteria to determine when a label should be mandatory? If suddenly the country becomes highly anti-Muslim, and consumers don't want to buy products made my anyone who is a Muslim, would you support a mandatory religion of the producer label? How many anti-Muslims does the country need to have (what percent of the population) until the label should become mandatory?

And why should the cost be borne by all the consumers who may find the label irrelevant? Why not support the voluntary approach to this kind of labeling (including negative labeling - such as "no Muslim hands were used in the production of this product") and have those who find such information relevant pay for that information by seeking out the products that have such labels?

Why should my food costs increase to provide me completely useless information so that someone who doesn't want to buy GMO products can see that the product contains GMOs and then they go seek out the "GMO-free" product instead, which they already have the ability to do already with the "GMO-free" and "organic" labeled products.

 

[laughing dog]

You are completely misreading me. Nothing in any of my responses is directly related to democracy - the argument is about supporting one of the basic foundations of market efficiency: easy access to relevant information to consumers (notice the plural). In the real world, that principle should be balanced against a number of other factors. If only one person out of millions thinks something is relevant, then it would be silly to invoke that principle without considering other factors. It is called a "rule of reason", not "kneejerk adherence to ideology".

So what is your criteria to determine whether a label should be mandatory? If suddenly the country becomes highly anti-Muslim, and consumers don't want to buy products made my anyone who is a Muslim, would you support a mandatory religion of the producer label? How many anti-Muslims does the country need to have (what percent of the population) until the label should become mandatory?

If such labelling did not violate some laws or the Constitution, then yes. I do not have an opinion on the minimum number of consumers necessary to generate mandatory labeling.

 

[Jarhyn]

There were, are, and continue to be research, peer reviewed and in good standing, establishing correlations between asbestos/cigarettes and cancer and lung disease. Replicated studies. mandating 'this is bad' labels for those products was warranted by the facts and research. There is no similar correlation for GMOs. The analogy fails.

Sorry, 60 years ago there was no research conclusively linking asbestos or cancer to health problems, so your responses totally missed the point.

Think of the effect that ingredients labels would have had if we had discriminated upon which ingredients meant a label was required. Voluntary labels mean 'good'. Universally applied labels are neutral. Selectively required labels mean 'bad'.

Not in the world I live in.

When you can show a link to negative health effects from GMO products that aren't merely 'GMO consumption was detectable', say 'BT potato consumption correlated with cancer rate of ( n > .01)% per capita with p < .01' then I'll immediately recommend pulling that product entirely. But right now you merely have the power of WOO on your side, and in a responsible society, we don't let woo wag the dog.

As I pointed out, your judgment as to relevant information does not matter.

Your ignorance of culturally driven label-based cues does not change the fact that the effect is powerful and present. It's laudible, if true, that you are able to be so discerning as to pay culturally embedded cues no heed, but you are in the vast minority. You must live in a very 'special' world to be so immune.

But for all the rest of us, the exformation is there, and is as real as any other context based exformation. It does not change the fact that you are proposing additional irrelevant exformation to be transmitted along with the information you propose including.

The only sensible label requirement is to just add the Strains included in the product to the ingredients list: 'BT potato, unknown potato, beet sugar, RR soy,...' And minimize the unnecessary and factually untrue exformation.