Support GMO foods

[ApostateAbe]

Who is lying to consumers and how?

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?

It is most certainly not a lie, and since it is not a lie, it makes a big difference. We can forcibly label all kinds of ingredients that would scare irrational consumers away from it. We can forcibly label by law all foods that contain Azodicarbonamide: "CONTAINS AZODICARBONAMIDE." Idiot consumers would not be better informed. They would be scared by it, and that would be the whole point. "I heard Food Babe say that it is the same ingredient contained in yoga mats." So they won't buy the product because they don't want to eat yoga mats. It is nothing more than a political effort to push GMOs out of the market. And they have said so.

 

[Axulus]

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.

Why don't you have an opinion on the matter? That should be pretty key I would think when we are talking about making something mandatory. Also, when does cost of tracking this new information ever enter the equation? How about fairness (since costs of the label will also be borne by those who find the information completely irrelevant)?

The voluntary approach is fair - those who find the information relevant will seek out products with the information they personally find relevant and the cost will be borne by them.

There is no vote or government law required. No enforcement cost. Producers will respond to consumer demands, as it has with the "GMO-free" and "organic" products, or "Made in the USA" with a gigantic US flag on the label.

Now, if we are talking about something that is actually harmful and has data to support the harm, that is something completely different all together.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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.

That would be a rational fear if there was scientific theory to make that fear plausible. The hypothesis of long-term harm of cigarettes did not always have the data, but it had plausible theory. The hypothesis of long-term harm of GMOs has neither data nor plausible theory. It has science fiction.

 

[ronburgundy]

GM methods versus traditional breeding methods are like a sharp knife versus a dull knife. Both can be used for good or bad, but GM is more powerful and can accomplish whatever aims its used for more efficiently. There is nothing more dangerous about GM itself. Any negatives or harms related to GMOs (whether sterile seeds or pesticide resistance that winds up increasing pesticide use) is not a danger of GM but a danger of selfish profit motives without regard for harm to others. The problem is not with the sharp knife but the dangerous unethical asshole holding it.

Rational and informed people do not fear GMOs because they are GM. But rational and informed people do fear that the unethical and single-minded profit pursuing assholes who run companies like DuPont would use that GM tool as a weapon.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Why don't you have an opinion on the matter? That should be pretty key I would think when we are talking about making something mandatory. Also, when does cost of tracking this new information ever enter the equation? How about fairness (since costs of the label will also be borne by those who find the information completely irrelevant)?

Because life is too short to think about everything all of the time. As to fairness, how is hiding information fair?

The voluntary approach is fair - those who find the information relevant will seek out products with the information they personally find relevant and the cost will be borne by them.

There is no vote or government law required. No enforcement cost. Producers will respond to consumer demands, as it has with the "GMO-free" and "organic" products, or "Made in the USA" with a gigantic US flag on the label.

Except that the voluntary approach may mean that different producers use different standards. And the lack of a label does not tell the consumer anything other than there is no lable. Finally, the cost of finding the information is probably much higher for the consumer than the supplier. And the consumer may not even know how to find the information.

And, of course, this ignores the notion that information is really a public good - once know it cannot be hidden from the free riders. Moreover, your analysis implicitly assumes that this information may harm sales. It may improve sales if people learn that GMO food is as tasty as "natural" food and costs less to boot.

Now, if we are talking about something that is actually harmful and has data to support the harm, that is something completely different all together.

You mean like tobacco which had no labelling for centauries even though now we know how harmful it is. Why is it fair to impose your standards of relevant information onto others?

 

[ApostateAbe]

GM methods versus traditional breeding methods are like a sharp knife versus a dull knife. Both can be used for good or bad, but GM is more powerful and can accomplish whatever aims its used for more efficiently. There is nothing more dangerous about GM itself. Any negatives or harms related to GMOs (whether sterile seeds or pesticide resistance that winds up increasing pesticide use) is not a danger of GM but a danger of selfish profit motives without regard for harm to others. The problem is not with the sharp knife but the dangerous unethical asshole holding it.

Rational and informed people do not fear GMOs because they are GM. But rational and informed people do fear that the unethical and single-minded profit pursuing assholes who run companies like DuPont would use that GM tool as a weapon.

When you buy a vacuum cleaner, you have no way of knowing that the CEO of Hoover is not a psychopath and won't design a vacuum cleaner that stabs you with a knife as soon as you hit the power button. Is that a rational fear?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

It is most certainly not a lie, and since it is not a lie, it makes a big difference. We can forcibly label all kinds of ingredients that would scare irrational consumers away from it. We can forcibly label by law all foods that contain Azodicarbonamide: "CONTAINS AZODICARBONAMIDE." Idiot consumers would not be better informed. They would be scared by it, and that would be the whole point. "I heard Food Babe say that it is the same ingredient contained in yoga mats." So they won't buy the product because they don't want to eat yoga mats. It is nothing more than a political effort to push GMOs out of the market. And they have said so.

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is most certainly not a lie, and since it is not a lie, it makes a big difference. We can forcibly label all kinds of ingredients that would scare irrational consumers away from it. We can forcibly label by law all foods that contain Azodicarbonamide: "CONTAINS AZODICARBONAMIDE." Idiot consumers would not be better informed. They would be scared by it, and that would be the whole point. "I heard Food Babe say that it is the same ingredient contained in yoga mats." So they won't buy the product because they don't want to eat yoga mats. It is nothing more than a political effort to push GMOs out of the market. And they have said so.

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

Yes, and anyone can go to the Monsanto website and correct themselves after exposing themselves to the largest targeted misinformation campaign in history. Monsanto has already spent a lot of money in an attempt to correct the myths. And they would need a hundred-fold budget for anything approaching success. And even that probably would not work, because fear works better than education. Forced labels would mislead consumers and drive GMOs off the market. This fact is not contradicted by shifting the responsibility. This fact stands alone.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is most certainly not a lie, and since it is not a lie, it makes a big difference. We can forcibly label all kinds of ingredients that would scare irrational consumers away from it. We can forcibly label by law all foods that contain Azodicarbonamide: "CONTAINS AZODICARBONAMIDE." Idiot consumers would not be better informed. They would be scared by it, and that would be the whole point. "I heard Food Babe say that it is the same ingredient contained in yoga mats." So they won't buy the product because they don't want to eat yoga mats. It is nothing more than a political effort to push GMOs out of the market. And they have said so.

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

And the proper way to provide relevant information is to not do it in a manner that necessarily transmits false exformation.

 

[bilby]

It is most certainly not a lie, and since it is not a lie, it makes a big difference. We can forcibly label all kinds of ingredients that would scare irrational consumers away from it. We can forcibly label by law all foods that contain Azodicarbonamide: "CONTAINS AZODICARBONAMIDE." Idiot consumers would not be better informed. They would be scared by it, and that would be the whole point. "I heard Food Babe say that it is the same ingredient contained in yoga mats." So they won't buy the product because they don't want to eat yoga mats. It is nothing more than a political effort to push GMOs out of the market. And they have said so.

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

The proper response to dangerous food ingredients is to ban their use, not to label them as dangerous.

Prove that RR Maize is dangerous, and the FDA won't mandate a label saying "Warning, this food contains RR Maize and may cause your toddler to explode"; They will simply ban it from being used at all.

Labelling is for hazards that only threaten a specific and identified minority - such as allergy sufferers - who need to be warned of something that is harmless to the general population.

Peanuts are harmless, except to the minority of people who are allergic to peanuts.

By all means, if you can identify a minority of people who are susceptible to harm from a specific GMO, then label products containing that GMO - but if you can't, then labelling is a red herring. Either a given GMO is universally harmful, and should be banned; or it is harmless, and no additional labelling is needed; or it is harmful only to an identified minority, in which case, you must be able to point to the human characteristic that renders a given GMO dangerous for that minority.

A food label that says 'May contain peanuts' is useful. A food label that says 'May contain plant or animal products' is not - because it is too broad to help anyone avoid a particular risk. A food label that says 'Toxic - do not eat' is pointless, because food that can reasonably be labelled in that way shouldn't be labelled - it should be banned.

GMOs are clearly not generally toxic (or most of the US population would be sick or dead). So the only reason they might need to be labelled is if there is an identifiable minority who can be harmed by them.

Please feel free to identify that minority, or STFU about labelling.

 

[laughing dog]

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

And the proper way to provide relevant information is to not do it in a manner that necessarily transmits false exformation.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[laughing dog]

The proper response to ignorance is education not hiding relevant information.

The proper response to dangerous food ingredients is to ban their use, not to label them as dangerous.

Prove that RR Maize is dangerous, and the FDA won't mandate a label saying "Warning, this food contains RR Maize and may cause your toddler to explode"; They will simply ban it from being used at all.

Labelling is for hazards that only threaten a specific and identified minority - such as allergy sufferers - who need to be warned of something that is harmless to the general population.

Peanuts are harmless, except to the minority of people who are allergic to peanuts.

By all means, if you can identify a minority of people who are susceptible to harm from a specific GMO, then label products containing that GMO - but if you can't, then labelling is a red herring. Either a given GMO is universally harmful, and should be banned; or it is harmless, and no additional labelling is needed; or it is harmful only to an identified minority, in which case, you must be able to point to the human characteristic that renders a given GMO dangerous for that minority.

A food label that says 'May contain peanuts' is useful. A food label that says 'May contain plant or animal products' is not - because it is too broad to help anyone avoid a particular risk. A food label that says 'Toxic - do not eat' is pointless, because food that can reasonably be labelled in that way shouldn't be labelled - it should be banned.

GMOs are clearly not generally toxic (or most of the US population would be sick or dead). So the only reason they might need to be labelled is if there is an identifiable minority who can be harmed by them.

Please feel free to identify that minority, or STFU about labelling.

Labelling is not simply about danger, so your entire response is pointless. Since your entire argument is based on that false premise, your advice is more hilariously ironic.

 

[Jarhyn]

And the proper way to provide relevant information is to not do it in a manner that necessarily transmits false exformation.

I have no idea what that means.

It is the difference between claiming you are not liable for yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater because the information 'fire' merely described a fire depicted in the film. The communication implies data beyond its mere content. In a similar way, mandated necessary labels such as 'this contains GMOs' transmits 'GMOs are dangerous' even if the text doesn't say that outright. It is assumed because of external contexts. This additional data that is communicated due to context is called 'exformation', because it is not 'in'formation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The proper response to dangerous food ingredients is to ban their use, not to label them as dangerous.

Prove that RR Maize is dangerous, and the FDA won't mandate a label saying "Warning, this food contains RR Maize and may cause your toddler to explode"; They will simply ban it from being used at all.

Labelling is for hazards that only threaten a specific and identified minority - such as allergy sufferers - who need to be warned of something that is harmless to the general population.

Peanuts are harmless, except to the minority of people who are allergic to peanuts.

By all means, if you can identify a minority of people who are susceptible to harm from a specific GMO, then label products containing that GMO - but if you can't, then labelling is a red herring. Either a given GMO is universally harmful, and should be banned; or it is harmless, and no additional labelling is needed; or it is harmful only to an identified minority, in which case, you must be able to point to the human characteristic that renders a given GMO dangerous for that minority.

A food label that says 'May contain peanuts' is useful. A food label that says 'May contain plant or animal products' is not - because it is too broad to help anyone avoid a particular risk. A food label that says 'Toxic - do not eat' is pointless, because food that can reasonably be labelled in that way shouldn't be labelled - it should be banned.

GMOs are clearly not generally toxic (or most of the US population would be sick or dead). So the only reason they might need to be labelled is if there is an identifiable minority who can be harmed by them.

Please feel free to identify that minority, or STFU about labelling.

Labelling is not simply about danger, so your entire response is pointless. Since your entire argument is based on that false premise, your advice is more hilariously ironic.

Not just about danger, yes, but about everything related to the conspiracy theories. It is a forcible advertisement of irrational politics. You can likewise make that case for the forced nationalistic country of origin labels, and it wouldn't help.

 

[bilby]

The proper response to dangerous food ingredients is to ban their use, not to label them as dangerous.

Prove that RR Maize is dangerous, and the FDA won't mandate a label saying "Warning, this food contains RR Maize and may cause your toddler to explode"; They will simply ban it from being used at all.

Labelling is for hazards that only threaten a specific and identified minority - such as allergy sufferers - who need to be warned of something that is harmless to the general population.

Peanuts are harmless, except to the minority of people who are allergic to peanuts.

By all means, if you can identify a minority of people who are susceptible to harm from a specific GMO, then label products containing that GMO - but if you can't, then labelling is a red herring. Either a given GMO is universally harmful, and should be banned; or it is harmless, and no additional labelling is needed; or it is harmful only to an identified minority, in which case, you must be able to point to the human characteristic that renders a given GMO dangerous for that minority.

A food label that says 'May contain peanuts' is useful. A food label that says 'May contain plant or animal products' is not - because it is too broad to help anyone avoid a particular risk. A food label that says 'Toxic - do not eat' is pointless, because food that can reasonably be labelled in that way shouldn't be labelled - it should be banned.

GMOs are clearly not generally toxic (or most of the US population would be sick or dead). So the only reason they might need to be labelled is if there is an identifiable minority who can be harmed by them.

Please feel free to identify that minority, or STFU about labelling.

Labelling is not simply about danger, so your entire response is pointless. Since your entire argument is based on that false premise, your advice is more hilariously ironic.

Apparently it is in this case - almost all the people clamouring for GMOs to be labelled are also saying that they are not safe.

If you understand that GMOs are perfectly safe, then that's something you should, perhaps, have made more explicit; But given that you understand this, why are you pushing for labelling?

I take it, from your response, that you do understand that GMOs are perfectly safe?

 

[ronburgundy]

GM methods versus traditional breeding methods are like a sharp knife versus a dull knife. Both can be used for good or bad, but GM is more powerful and can accomplish whatever aims its used for more efficiently. There is nothing more dangerous about GM itself. Any negatives or harms related to GMOs (whether sterile seeds or pesticide resistance that winds up increasing pesticide use) is not a danger of GM but a danger of selfish profit motives without regard for harm to others. The problem is not with the sharp knife but the dangerous unethical asshole holding it.

Rational and informed people do not fear GMOs because they are GM. But rational and informed people do fear that the unethical and single-minded profit pursuing assholes who run companies like DuPont would use that GM tool as a weapon.

When you buy a vacuum cleaner, you have no way of knowing that the CEO of Hoover is not a psychopath and won't design a vacuum cleaner that stabs you with a knife as soon as you hit the power button. Is that a rational fear?

IF Hoover could make more profit by doing that and get away with it, then they would do it, so it would be a rational fear.
The more probable danger is not from psychopaths seeking to harm for the fun of it, but normal people who are not trying to harm but to profit, and they just care more about profit than any harm to others their profit seeking happens to cause.
It isn't that we have "no way of knowing" the intentions of the corporate decision makers. We in fact have every way of knowing based upon a mountain of evidence that those decision makers have a selfish disregard for public safety in a single-minded pursuit of ever increasing profits. And this motive has led them to do things that have caused harm, and will do so again in the future.
If there are ways GM corps can profit off of types of GMOs that also happen to be harmful, then we know that they will likely pursue such GMOs, not because they are harmful but merely without regard for such harm.
More specifically, we know that DuPont controls most of the pesticide market and the GMO crop market. Thus we know it is in their direct profit interests to use GM tech in ways that increase the use of pesticides that we know are environmentally dangerous.

 

[Jarhyn]

When you buy a vacuum cleaner, you have no way of knowing that the CEO of Hoover is not a psychopath and won't design a vacuum cleaner that stabs you with a knife as soon as you hit the power button. Is that a rational fear?

IF Hoover could make more profit by doing that and get away with it, then they would do it, so it would be a rational fear.
The more probable danger is not from psychopaths seeking to harm for the fun of it, but normal people who are not trying to harm but to profit, and they just care more about profit than any harm to others their profit seeking happens to cause.
It isn't that we have "no way of knowing" the intentions of the corporate decision makers. We in fact have every way of knowing based upon a mountain of evidence that those decision makers have a selfish disregard for public safety in a single-minded pursuit of ever increasing profits. And this motive has led them to do things that have caused harm, and will do so again in the future.
If there are ways GM corps can profit off of types of GMOs that also happen to be harmful, then we know that they will likely pursue such GMOs, not because they are harmful but merely without regard for such harm.
More specifically, we know that DuPont controls most of the pesticide market and the GMO crop market. Thus we know it is in their direct profit interests to use GM tech in ways that increase the use of pesticides that we know are environmentally dangerous.

And in order for this to be a valid, rational argument you also have to qualify 'we know are environmentally dangerous' with an answer to 'with respect to what?'. You have made a statement with no context. With respect to spraying food with NICOTINE? With respect to spraying it with copper oxides? When evaluating if it is dangerous, it must always be qualified with the danger with respect to what we were doing before. The fact of the matter is, those pesticides are dangerous only in comparison to doing nothing, but doing nothing is dangerous to people, because starvation is dangerous.

At the end of the day, I'll take the cancer risk from use of BT (which is so low as to be this far undetectable) and the impact to the ecosystem over the same risks as pertains to nicotine or the effects of starving to death or living in poverty because food is too expensive.

 

[ApostateAbe]

When you buy a vacuum cleaner, you have no way of knowing that the CEO of Hoover is not a psychopath and won't design a vacuum cleaner that stabs you with a knife as soon as you hit the power button. Is that a rational fear?

IF Hoover could make more profit by doing that and get away with it, then they would do it, so it would be a rational fear.
The more probable danger is not from psychopaths seeking to harm for the fun of it, but normal people who are not trying to harm but to profit, and they just care more about profit than any harm to others their profit seeking happens to cause.
It isn't that we have "no way of knowing" the intentions of the corporate decision makers. We in fact have every way of knowing based upon a mountain of evidence that those decision makers have a selfish disregard for public safety in a single-minded pursuit of ever increasing profits. And this motive has led them to do things that have caused harm, and will do so again in the future.
If there are ways GM corps can profit off of types of GMOs that also happen to be harmful, then we know that they will likely pursue such GMOs, not because they are harmful but merely without regard for such harm.
More specifically, we know that DuPont controls most of the pesticide market and the GMO crop market. Thus we know it is in their direct profit interests to use GM tech in ways that increase the use of pesticides that we know are environmentally dangerous.

Is there plausible speculation that would lead us to suspect that there can be a profit motive behind the sale of products that would harm public health? That would be an essential point. For the same reason Hoover would have no plausible interest in selling vacuum cleaners that stab people, Dupont and Monsanto have no interest in selling seeds that would harm public health. There is not even a plausible speculation that such seeds may be accidentally produced. In fact the probability would be less than through selection of random mutations.

 

[Toni]

Labelling is not simply about danger, so your entire response is pointless. Since your entire argument is based on that false premise, your advice is more hilariously ironic.

Apparently it is in this case - almost all the people clamouring for GMOs to be labelled are also saying that they are not safe.

If you understand that GMOs are perfectly safe, then that's something you should, perhaps, have made more explicit; But given that you understand this, why are you pushing for labelling?

I take it, from your response, that you do understand that GMOs are perfectly safe?

You are incorrect: many who oppose GMOs do so out of environmental concerns. In fact, while GMOs have been around for about 15 years, that is too short a time span to be certain there are no long term ill effects.

What is the policy regarding GMOs in Australia ?

 

[bilby]

Apparently it is in this case - almost all the people clamouring for GMOs to be labelled are also saying that they are not safe.

If you understand that GMOs are perfectly safe, then that's something you should, perhaps, have made more explicit; But given that you understand this, why are you pushing for labelling?

I take it, from your response, that you do understand that GMOs are perfectly safe?

You are incorrect: many who oppose GMOs do so out of environmental concerns. In fact, while GMOs have been around for about 15 years, that is too short a time span to be certain there are no long term ill effects.

Oh, I see. And these environmental concerns can be alleviated by labelling, can they?

A call for labelling cannot be rationally motivated by environmental concerns, unless you agree that it is just an underhanded way to ban something that you are unable to ban on legitimate grounds.

What is the policy regarding GMOs in Australia ?

What difference does that make to anything? Our government bans same-sex marriage. They also ban selling rancid food. Their policies are not consistently based in reason or science; some are good, some are bad.

While I hope my opinion might influence government policy (at least to some extent), the reverse is not, and should not, be true - I don't use government policy as an input when forming an opinion. ('Oh, I was going to support an increase in income tax, but apparently the government's policy is to reduce it, so I shall change my mind', said no-one ever).

ETA: The Australia and New Zealand regulatory body, (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) is a joint body of the two national governments, and the policy as agreed between the responsible ministers of the two nations can be found at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/labelling/Pages/default.aspx, if you are interested.