pepharytheworm wrote:Bottom line does it effect you negatively in any way if this labeling comes into effect? Would you be upset if you bought a non-gmo product on accident?
It's not the label itself that's the problem, it's the way people act on that information. We label ingredients, but in such a way that unless you truly care you don't bother looking to see if a particular ingredient is there. If GMO was labeled in the same way I wouldn't have a problem. But I don't like enabling people to make stupid choices; by that I mean choices that aren't well reasoned out. Concerns about locking farms in is a legitimate concern. Concerns because genetic modification sounds like a scary word is not a legitimate concern.
yes I'm just trolling you, but I don't see why anyone should be upset about a label. People in Europe don't like GMO products and it's gotten in the way of the trade deal between us. I think it should be an easy fix. Just put on labels. I'm not against GMO myself, but I think people who do care about it should get the warning they want, and it's a shitty corporate practice of trying to step over consumer rights, by demanding no such labels be put on their products.
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
But that's how it works with many agricultural products when it comes to marketing. As soon as GMO labeling is introduced, companies labeling products non-GMO will still rake in the cash, just because people aren't informed. Its like the "grass fed" animal example I gave earlier- all grass fed means is that at some point in the animal's life, the animal had access to grass. But certain people will pay more for grass fed, even if what they are getting isn't what they think they are getting. Its not a lie to label that way, but that doesn't mean the animal only ate grass its whole life as some people believe.
Another example would be putting gluten free on products. A decent amount of those products were gluten free in the first place, but a quick addition to the label adds value to it in the eyes of certain consumers, making it higher demand.
Part of the fight against GMO labeling in the US was because of how consumers buy, and many feared that having to label their product as GMO would affect sales and hurt the business. Considering how widespread GMOs have become in crops, it would be huuuge hit to the crop industry if consumers started to only buy non-GMO products.
The use of GMO has pros and cons. The major pros are durable crops in small spaces which manage to feed more people for less money.
The major cons are Monsanto's unethical business practices (please don't start with the "businesses only exist to make money" cop-out again, thank you) and the unknowns of GMOs. It appears that GMOs are safe, but only to the extent that they have been tested. Science isn't going to prove that a GMO is safe, because it doesn't work that way. It's the kind of question that you can only fail to provide significant evidence for. You ask "in general, does this particular genetically modified crop lead to this particular disease, like cancer, or some specific form of the many types of cancer out there" and you look at the numbers and try to decide if more people got cancer than one would reasonably expect by chance. If the difference in cancer rates between the GMO-fed and non-GMO-fed groups are only as different as one might expect by chance, then you fail to show evidence for the theory that GMOs cause cancer, but you DO NOT PROVE that they did not cause cancer. That's an important distinction.
You also are only evaluating specific crops against specific diseases. There are very many types of crops and very many types of possible maladies. Many hypothesis are possible, only some have been tested. Granted, at some point you have to stop testing and just assume that you will be safe, but that comfort zone is going to be different for different people, which is why this stuff should be labeled so that people actually have some sort of choice over whether they eat GMOs or not. With new GMOs being developed all of the time, I don't think we can ever make a blanket statement that all GMOs are perfectly safe. I'm willing to trust that many of them are to date, largely because we run out of choices for feeding an ever-expanding populace without big business farming and GMOs, but I'm not as willing to just accept the idea with as little scrutiny as MrPopo and Forlorn Drifter apparently are.
As I said to Peph, it's not the presence or absence of a label, it's that people are stupid, so giving them the information means they're going to use that information poorly. Look at jvalentine in the Ebola thread. He's a perfect example of the behavior I fear. Now, if it's a small label like Peph alluded to in his last post then I don't have a problem with it. But if it's in the style of how Ben & Jerry's does their "Cows not on hormones" label I'll be annoyed, because it'll potentially lead to a slowing of genetic modification research simply because the uneducated masses don't know any better.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
J T wrote:I don't think we can ever make a blanket statement that all GMOs are perfectly safe. I'm willing to trust that many of them are to date, largely because we run out of choices for feeding an ever-expanding populace without big business farming and GMOs, but I'm not as willing to just accept the idea with as little scrutiny as MrPopo and Forlorn Drifter apparently are.
I'd argue we can't make a statement that non-GMOs are perfectly safe either.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
J T wrote:I don't think we can ever make a blanket statement that all GMOs are perfectly safe. I'm willing to trust that many of them are to date, largely because we run out of choices for feeding an ever-expanding populace without big business farming and GMOs, but I'm not as willing to just accept the idea with as little scrutiny as MrPopo and Forlorn Drifter apparently are.
I'd argue we can't make a statement that non-GMOs are perfectly safe either.
That's true, but they've been used for years and we have a better sense for what is edible.
MrPopo wrote:As I said to Peph, it's not the presence or absence of a label, it's that people are stupid, so giving them the information means they're going to use that information poorly.
That's an arrogant paternalistic view. The information should be out there for the smart people. Stupid people make bad decisions regardless of what information they have.
Looking at the article I posted earlier, which talked about a study which looked at animal health and productivity over 29 years. It had years pertaining to animals being fed without GMO crops, and animals being fed with GMO crops, and found no discernible health problems caused by feeding the livestock GMO feed. Considering hogs were a part of this study, and how physically similar hogs are to humans, I think it is safe to make the connection that GMOs are just as safe for humans as they are animals.
You also have to take into consideration the fact that GMO crops, and GMO fed livestock have been a large part of the food source in the US and other GMO using countries (such as Brazil) since their introduction. If there was problems with GMO products, don't you think it would have been noticed at large by now? 95% of animals in the US are fed GMO crops and have no side effects. I think that's a pretty good indicator of how safe they are.
J T wrote:I don't think we can ever make a blanket statement that all GMOs are perfectly safe. I'm willing to trust that many of them are to date, largely because we run out of choices for feeding an ever-expanding populace without big business farming and GMOs, but I'm not as willing to just accept the idea with as little scrutiny as MrPopo and Forlorn Drifter apparently are.
I'd argue we can't make a statement that non-GMOs are perfectly safe either.
What I don't get about your argument is your stance seems to be inaction due to risk of improper implementation of labeling. Why is it not instead a stance on labeling in a proper fashion that coincides with your ideals? As ZeroAX stated it has effected trade and if you research it has not negatively impacted foreign countries revenues or profit.
95% of animals in the US are fed GMO crops and have no side effects. I think that's a pretty good indicator of how safe they are.
And what is the average lifespan of livestock
As a side note Measure 92 won't be labeling livestock that has been fed GE foods as Genetically Engineered.
Last edited by pepharytheworm on Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
