|
Javid posted:So the argument is basically "people with information on GMO content might make a decision I consider suboptimal"? This isn't me saying that consumers are stupid, this is me saying that consumers will reasonably trust that warning labels make any sort of sense, and this law will make that untrue. Ditocoaf fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 4, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Javid posted:So in your universe someone wanting specific information of the content of the food they're buying should just shut up and shovel whatever's in the store directly into their face? If you care that much about GMOs, you buy organic. There's your loving label. These measures are being used to scare people about technologies that have been shown for decades to be perfectly safe. They wrongly imply that there is something wrong or unsafe about GMOs, and last time I checked printing something that isn't true and causes someone damages is a form of defamation. By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why someone who develops a new species of plant shouldn't be allowed to profit from it. That makes no loving sense to me. If you're talking about conventional breeding, that poo poo takes years to perfect. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why someone who develops a new species of plant shouldn't be allowed to profit from it. That makes no loving sense to me. If you're talking about conventional breeding, that poo poo takes years to perfect. I think the idea of patenting certain gene sequences makes them uneasy; me included. I'm not sure we understand the implications of that just yet with the rapid speed that this area is moving with. Labeling "GMO" foods is loving retarded, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:I think the idea of patenting certain gene sequences makes them uneasy; me included. I'm not sure we understand the implications of that just yet with the rapid speed that this area is moving with. Labeling "GMO" foods is loving retarded, though. Exactly this. E: gently caress, this kind of thing applies to Nuclear power too. Too many anti-science fuckheads are crying about old information on old designs developed in the 50s and 60s. The state of things has advanced greatly since then, and we would all benefit from a bit more of a level-headed look at nuclear power. (Not that it's perfect by any stretch, but it's better than coal, and fracking). Error 404 fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
gently caress corn, corn subsidies, and Monsanto
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
But Doritos taste so drat good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:But Doritos taste so drat good. It finally makes sense why goons love GMO corn
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:But Doritos taste so drat good. I also hope measure 91 passes. the weed one, if you're not in Oregon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:gently caress corn, corn subsidies, and Monsanto Yes, hate them for being bastards, not because GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why someone who develops a new species of plant shouldn't be allowed to profit from it. That makes no loving sense to me. If you're talking about conventional breeding, that poo poo takes years to perfect. Because, contrary to the neoliberal economics which have become entrenched in the conventional wisdom (are you a Libertarian, by any chance?), the "free market" is not a benevolent deity. The constant accusations of being "anti-science" just because I have qualms about GMO agriculture, and being lumped in with the luddite equivalent of anti-vaxxers is insulting, and amounts to strawmanning the opposition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Because, contrary to the neoliberal economics which have become entrenched in the conventional wisdom (are you a Libertarian, by any chance?), the "free market" is not a benevolent deity. Do you enjoy labeling people who disagree with you Republicans/Libertarians? Or do you just not have a better response for him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Do you enjoy labeling people who disagree with you Republicans/Libertarians? Or do you just not have a better response for him? Yes. Also, nice cherry-pick there, skippy. Ignore everything but the parenthetical - excellent choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:The argument is that the rule is arbitrary and useless, because there are thousands of things you could have "information on" and singling out this specific thing is something we should require only if this specific thing is dangerous or relevant somehow. It's not. But having a warning label implies that there is, which is straight-up spreading disinformation. I'm a socialist, if we're doing identity politics. I trust corporations as little as anyone here. But this GMO thing isn't relevant to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Because, contrary to the neoliberal economics which have become entrenched in the conventional wisdom (are you a Libertarian, by any chance?), the "free market" is not a benevolent deity. But just "having qualms" about something is empty, it has no weight behind it. If you have a specific problem with GMO agriculture, that's a basis for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:But just "having qualms" about something is empty, it has no weight behind it. If you have a specific problem with GMO agriculture, that's a basis for discussion. My biggest qualm is that it is a pawn in supra-sovereign negotiations that citizens have no access to. It is an exemplar of corporate/government entanglement, and levels of diplomacy that occur behind closed doors and with no involvement from the public. It is something which shows that the rights of a supposedly sovereign people are trumped by the economic interests of globalized industry. Vote for something they don't like, they will go to the WTO to overrule it. Really, what I would like to see is the general public made aware of the existence of this whole system, and if passing a GMO-labeling law helps to aid that process then it is worth it. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops I don't argue that there is anything inherently wrong with GMO crops themselves, aside from the industrial, profit-based, environmentally-questionable nature of a lot of them. It is their place as a symbol of neoliberal globalization and corporate hegemony that I personally find problematic. I'm not "anti-science" in the least, and find it regrettable that an army of unwashed Jenny McCarthys seems to be the picture most people have of the opposition (which, in all fairness, is not completely untrue).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Really, what I would like to see is the general public made aware of the existence of this whole system, and if passing a GMO-labeling law helps to aid that process then it is worth it. I haven't seen any reason to believe that it would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I haven't seen any reason to believe that it would. Well, if nothing else it's an upraised middle finger to the WTO, which I am okay with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
I read the gmo bill text and it doesn't sound that bad. What would the label actually look like? People are caught up on this idea of it being a warning which I'm not sure is all that accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:I read the gmo bill text and it doesn't sound that bad. What would the label actually look like? People are caught up on this idea of it being a warning which I'm not sure is all that accurate. CONTAINS
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:CONTAINS So yea, it is like you guys are buying into the 'anti-science hysteria' by being against the label. Oh no, consumers are fickle bitches and run away from brands at the slightest hint of something they might not like. I mean poo poo, they are eating the stuff after all. If GMOs are as awesome as you guys want them to be that label shouldn't be a warning but actually a badge of honor. I am truly sorry that you are losing the messaging war but come on, this label is not some horrible terrible thing. Some say it is insignificant distinction, I ask is all the information on our food significant to you? Do you read every bit of the label? How much are businesses going to be hurt in lost sales? in 'repackaging costs'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:ok? The issue is that you are supporting multinational corporations by supporting this label. Why are multinational corporations that grow things "organically" more worthy of your support than those that don't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
See you buy into the messaging that organic is good and gmo is bad. You are losing that battle and I am sorry, but it is not my fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:See you buy into the messaging that organic is good and gmo is bad. Again, every GMO supporter ITT has no credible argument and goes with "well, I don't care about logic, I want to do what I feel is right!" At least the dude wanting to stick it to "The Man" earlier had a more understandable, if still wrong, argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
CaptainSarcastic posted:Because, contrary to the neoliberal economics which have become entrenched in the conventional wisdom (are you a Libertarian, by any chance?), the "free market" is not a benevolent deity. First off, you don't get to complain about people responding to parentheticals when you do the same loving thing. You're being anti-science because you're completely unwilling to separate GMO technology from your problems with the WTO. You're unwilling to support public research and you're furthering the fear mongering that further supports those efforts. You don't believe that scientists who design novel organisms should be allowed to use the money from such research to further fund their efforts, instead that they should somehow work for free because anything else is Libertarianism in your eyes. How else are they going to develop new strains without institutional support? Your impotent rage does nothing but make the Monsantos, the Syngentas and Bayers stronger because they don't have to compete against publicly funded research. Come on buddy, this is batshit crazy. You're raging against the next Golden Rice because you don't like the WTO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, every GMO supporter ITT has no credible argument and goes with "well, I don't care about logic, I want to do what I feel is right!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:We label all sorts of poo poo and I don't see why GMOs shouldn't be treated differently. If that hurts a company I am sorry, they need to market their product better. Do you agree to a label telling people that something may contain Dihydrogen Monoxide? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you agree to a label telling people that something may contain Dihydrogen Monoxide? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:We label all sorts of poo poo and I don't see why GMOs should be treated differently. If that hurts a company I am sorry, they need to market their product better. But why do it? And how do you differentiate it from every other equivalent claim? Obviously you can't have a 15 page addendum to every cracker detailed it's pedigree. What's your standard? Pro-labeling arguments fail to establish utility or appropriate significance. The only thing they've got is, "We want it." We'll see if enough people want it tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:I think water is often included on labels? Is that what you are getting at? Not water, Dihydrogen Monoxide. Do you support a label that says "Contains Dihydrogen Monoxide"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:We label all sorts of poo poo and I don't see why GMOs should be treated differently. If that hurts a company I am sorry, they need to market their product better. This isn't about marketing poo poo for a large food company, it's about destroying support for publically funded GMO research. Saying that a large food company needs to "market their product better" doesn't mean poo poo when you're talking about public research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This isn't about marketing poo poo for a large food company, it's about destroying support for publically funded GMO research. Saying that a large food company needs to "market their product better" doesn't mean poo poo when you're talking about public research. Kurt_Cobain fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:This is a jump I have not seen. Some how this label effects public research now? Wow, draw this one out for me because I must be dumb. There's no need to be a jerk. The idea is that by further scaring people about GMOs, you shrivel up what little support there is for public research in the area. As you may have noticed, even Mr. WTO above cannot bring him or herself to support public research, even though it would directly counter many of the issues s/he has brought up. That should tell you something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
And you'll lose private R&D because who'll eat it? How much R&D will the ROI warrant?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
I want a label indicating if any crops were irrigated using fluoridated water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:I want a label indicating if any crops were irrigated using fluoridated water. "GROWN USING DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE AND FLUORINE"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:There's no need to be a jerk. The idea is that by further scaring people about GMOs, you shrivel up what little support there is for public research in the area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:GMO is supposed to be awesome and amazing but for some reason you guys don't seem to want to make this case to the public? The, "My opponent is a dumb science bitch," argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:So again, you are losing the messaging war by accepting in the first place that this is some kind of warning. Look at the organic sticker and how people gobble that poo poo up. GMO is supposed to be awesome and amazing but for some reason you guys don't seem to want to make this case to the public? Who are you including in the collective "you" in your post? Do you really believe that public researchers and Monsanto are all part of the same group, with the same interests and goals?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
I said 'you' because you said 'The idea is that by further scaring people about GMOs, you shrivel up what little support there is for public research in the area.' Which accepts the messaging of gmo being bad. I am not scaring people. People may scare themselves but that's not my problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:I said 'you' because you said It is your problem when you support measures that harm public development into this technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:14
|
|