|
Buller posted:Combating Scientific Ignorance: consumers don't want GMO Combating Scientific Ignorance: consumers don't want Halal meats
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Buller posted:Combating Scientific Ignorance: consumers don't want GMO Consumers are generally loving morons. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
NFX posted:Combating Scientific Ignorance: consumers don't want Halal meats There is a case to be made here with halal/kosher slaughter practices vs captive bolt guns that is actually a good parallel to the HT GMOs vs all GMOs. Most people will only react to the label with gut instinct, those that care about the underlying issue are generally informed enough to not need a product to be specifically labeled. Although I'd love to see all domesticated plant and animal goods required to label themselves as GMOs. Especially with meat that comes from selectively bred hybrid cattle. We genetically modified that poo poo and have been since gregor Mendel and his pea plants
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Sorry for not responding earlier, end of term tends to be a busy time.QuarkJets posted:It's not just the field of psychology providing these conclusions, there's data to examine, too. We can look at the growth in sales of non-GMO labels as an indicator of the effectiveness of such a label, and sales of products labeled non-GMO have been rising rapidly. This suggests that unlabeled foods are losing sales due to non-GMO labeling. The first comment on this article would indicate that this is at least partially due to existing products having labels applied to them. Furthermore, it is hard to differentiate someone buying a product explicitly for GMO-free reasons from the plethora of other labelling aspects that likely accompany them (such as organic, gluten free, etc). I still acknowledge that this at least more strongly supports purchasing behaviours changing as a function of labelling, although not directly of the sort we are describing (labelling something as containing something is non-identical to labelling other things as not containing that thing). QuarkJets posted:No, that's actually still a reason to oppose mandatory labeling. Because if labeling doesn't impact buying behaviors, then there's no point in having mandatory labeling. That's just it though: the position should be made very clear that the reason for opposition is entirely from a "it's pointless" perspective, not a "it's harmful" one, because the latter is easier to defuse and then gives weight to those arguing against it. Making it clear that the opposition to labelling is about the general lack of purpose is much clearer, and even better, puts incredulity towards those who want to label it because they either want to waste resources or deliberately harm sales. Obviously some of those things are built on more basic aspects like "GMO produce is just like other produce", but those beliefs are far more difficult to change (naturalistic fallacy and such).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
I buy GMO free tofu because it's all the grocery store carries because most of the people who eat tofu are the types to hate GMO. Really annoying, I'd prefer voting with my wallet for the GMO soy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Sorry for not responding earlier, end of term tends to be a busy time. Why would it matter that the effect is "due to existing products having labels applied to them"? Why do you feel that this is an important point to raise? Also, organic is already non-GMO, so why would a maker of organic food go through the trouble of getting a non-GMO certification? That makes no sense. Non-GMO labeling is for products that are not already organic. quote:That's just it though: the position should be made very clear that the reason for opposition is entirely from a "it's pointless" perspective, not a "it's harmful" one, because the latter is easier to defuse and then gives weight to those arguing against it. Making it clear that the opposition to labelling is about the general lack of purpose is much clearer, and even better, puts incredulity towards those who want to label it because they either want to waste resources or deliberately harm sales. Obviously some of those things are built on more basic aspects like "GMO produce is just like other produce", but those beliefs are far more difficult to change (naturalistic fallacy and such). But it is harmful. You haven't defused that point at all! Furthermore, if you believe that mandatory GMO labeling isn't about harming GMO sales, then why is the organic industry pumping so much money into lobbying for mandatory GMO labels?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Sorry for not responding earlier, end of term tends to be a busy time. You're confusing two different issues. One is "why do anti-GMO people want mandatory labeling" and the other is "what's the best way to argue against it." The obvious reason people want GMO-labels is to stigmatize GMOs and eliminate them from the food chain. However, the best argument against labeling is that it is pointless, adding no useful information about the product. That forces the labelers to make a positive case for it, and moves the argument off of the deceitful but reasonable-sounding "people might want to know."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
On an GMO but non-labeling related, USDA determined they don't have any regulatory authority over GMOs that are gene knockout only. FDA hasn't issued their decision yet, so they might still have regulatory oversight for human food, but if they don't this could be a very interesting regulatory loophole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:05
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:On an GMO but non-labeling related, USDA determined they don't have any regulatory authority over GMOs that are gene knockout only. Got a source on the USDA decision?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Got a source on the USDA decision? Looks like the answer was more complex than I remembered: quote:Yang’s mushroom did not trigger USDA oversight because it does not contain foreign DNA from ‘plant pests’ such as viruses or bacteria. Such organisms were necessary for genetically modifying plants in the 1980s and 1990s, when the US government developed its framework for regulating GMOs. But newer gene-editing techniques that do not involve plant pests are quickly supplanting the old tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
E: Posted this in the wrong thread like an idiot
ChaseSP fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Breaking: Pesticide found to be cause of microcephaly in South America, says Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages Here's the article I was sent on facebook that started this mess. It's from a colleage's wife's feed, which is concerning. The report has become a locus of fear around the epidemic/microcephaly, separate from the direct Zika panic. The pesticide is Pyriproxyfen. The locational analysis appears to be selectively specified, but I'd love someone to help me have better counterarguments for this one- Zika's a focus of research in my department, and I'd like to nip this in the bud. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Breaking: Pesticide found to be cause of microcephaly in South America, says Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages Counterargument one: The announcement was done by an Anti-GMO medical 'association' Counterargument two: CDC confirmed fore sure Friday that Zika is directly causing Microcephaly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 05:45
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Counterargument one: The announcement was done by an Anti-GMO medical 'association' Counter-counterargument: These are really bad counterarguments. Neither of these are going to do anything to help me convince a humanities PhD's stay-at-home wife that this isn't a trustworthy source or that their concerns aren't valid.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
There would naturally be an association between use of any pesticide like that (used to control mosquitoes in areas heavily affected by them) and mosquito borne illnesses, and effects of those illnesses, no? Those areas still have more mosquitoes than other places after treatment. Haven't there also been microcephaly cases linked to zika outside of the areas these pesticides have been used? I haven't really followed it closely. (Not that any individual case can be conclusively linked to a cause, since there is a background rate and other causes, and most pregnancies in zika infected women don't result in microcephaly).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
I'm Facebook friends with the professor of Epidemiology at Yale Medical School and he says that Zika not only is causing micro-encephaly in newborns but that it has long-term neurological sequelae. I'll post a few of the articles he's posted about it from his Facebook page: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...urgery%7CLancet http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6513e1.htm This is the one about the Zika virus causing long-term neurological effects in adults. He said it's in the same family as Yellow Fever so a vaccine is plausible after I asked. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...rology%7CLancet
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Remember that providing positive information is more useful than trying debunk negative information, and in some cases makes these conspiracy theories grow stronger in the populace, such as anti-vaxxers, whom they found would often adhere even more strictly to their beliefs when presented with educational materials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Breaking: Pesticide found to be cause of microcephaly in South America, says Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages Good places to start: Was the pesticide being used way before Is the pesticide actually being used in all the regions with common microencephaly? Are there regions where this pesticide is used that don't suffer from an explosion in microencephaly cases ? (yes) suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!|
Those are all great, thank you! I'm swamped with end-of-semester projects so I don't have time to research the pesticide use on my own, so this is very helpful. Additional neuro effects aren't surprising, given the mechanism of the disease- it's just especially horrible to realize that even the seemingly healthy children of infected parents might be suffering permanent damage. One thing I'm still not clear on: has there been a determination of what the period of effect is in mothers? I understand that adults weather the symptoms fairly quickly, but it's not clear that recovering from the virus means that it's then safe to have children. If Zika was effecting the reproductive process, it could in principle still cause harm to pregnancies at any time after infection.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Counter-counterargument: These are really bad counterarguments. Neither of these are going to do anything to help me convince a humanities PhD's stay-at-home wife that this isn't a trustworthy source or that their concerns aren't valid. The main counterargument is that microencephalopathy tracks with Zika spreading in other countries (including French Polynesia), not with usage of Pyriproxyfen. The only thing linking it to Pyripoxyfen is a singular correlational report that wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal and lacks figures/graphs. They consider the lack of Colombian cases of microenchephalopathy linked to Zika to be strong, undeniable evidence, but Brazil had evidence of Zika transmission 5 months before Colombia (who saw it in October 2015), and microenchephalopathy is hard to detect before very late into the pregnancy or at birth, particularly with the tools available in rural South America. Also quote:Unlike the relationship between the Zika virus and microcephaly, which has had its confirmation attested in tests that indicated the presence of the virus in samples of blood, tissue and amniotic fluid, the association between the use of pyriproxyfen and microcephaly has no scientific basis," Brazil's Ministry of Health said in a statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
It's nice to be on the other side of the fearmongering for a change. Also, if you look at the other GMO labelling stories under "related news", it looks like Vermont's law is forcing companies to adopt GMO labeling nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:45
|
|
McGavin posted:It's nice to be on the other side of the fearmongering for a change. That was always the goal. God dammit, this sucks...
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Like this changes really anything on the farm ultimately. Big Agri-Chem has been talking up their biologicals pipeline and there are "natural" herbicide resistant cultivars. You get the privilege of the same residue load at a higher price. There are also not the tools available widely to proactively counter reactive control reliance. Agriculture needs to change but few solutions are readily forthcoming. I tend to avoid this thread cause it makes me sad where we have two rival camps of thought where neither really want to solve on the ground issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why would it matter that the effect is "due to existing products having labels applied to them"? Why do you feel that this is an important point to raise? As for organic products, well, even a brief search reveals a number of products that have done exactly this. We know that this makes no sense, but clearly the sellers believe it is important to label. For example:  An already certified organic product (note the USDA label in the bottom right), proudly advertising their additional status of GMO-free (despite, as you correctly say, this being a redundant label). quote:But it is harmful. You haven't defused that point at all! I also have never claimed know what the cry for labelling is or isn't about. It is difficult to assert any single motivation in any event, as I can absolutely see how someone could both genuinely believe it to be a good thing for people (they've convinced themselves that GMO food is unhealthy for whatever flawed reason) while also profiting from it. Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is disingenuous to claim that they are. Else, the same could be said of monsanto, or any other organization researching or working to produce genetic modifications in food (e.g. They can't both be interested in improving accessibility of food and making a profit). Deteriorata posted:You're confusing two different issues. One is "why do anti-GMO people want mandatory labeling" and the other is "what's the best way to argue against it." To summarize, I don't think it's a good idea to be heavily invested in the "labelling is harmful" argument when there are better positions to take, at least until we have strong, positive evidence to support the claim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Hypha posted:I tend to avoid this thread cause it makes me sad where we have two rival camps of thought where neither really want to solve on the ground issues. I call bullshit. First you're going to need to specify exactly what ground issues you're talking about, and then we can talk about whether or not either of the "camps" want to solve them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:To summarize, I don't think it's a good idea to be heavily invested in the "labelling is harmful" argument when there are better positions to take, at least until we have strong, positive evidence to support the claim. I don't think that anyone in this thread is "heavily invested" in that argument. It seems pretty obvious that mandatory labeling is harmful, to bottom lines certainly even if you don't want to agree on whether or not it's significantly harmful to sales or public perception of GMO products (I propose that it is but don't give enough of a poo poo to prove that). And it seems pretty obvious that labeling is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
I couldn't actually follow what coolwhoami was arguing for.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:To summarize, I don't think it's a good idea to be heavily invested in the "labelling is harmful" argument when there are better positions to take, at least until we have strong, positive evidence to support the claim. I'm pretty sure everyone on both sides is taking this as a given. We'll get the evidence soon enough thanks to Vermont, but the fact that labels change sales isn't exactly ground breaking science at this point. Coolwhoami posted:For example, what if such labelling motivates more people to learn about them, and as part of the labelling legislation public education is funded to explain what is meant? This isn't going to happen in any conceivable scenario. The only people interested in passing labeling laws are completely uninterested in unbiased education.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I couldn't actually follow what coolwhoami was arguing for. He started by asking why there are no serious in-depth studies into how labels effect buying patterns, ignoring that there almost definitely are but that no one in the thread is particularly equipped to provide them (or interested in providing them). That led to him saying that the "labeling is harmful" argument is a bad argument, because no one in the thread has bothered to prove it, but "labeling is pointless / voluntary non-GMO labeling is better" is a good argument because you can prove it with a tiny bit of reasoning. His posts all hinge on the idea that labeling might not really be harmful after all, which I guess is possible but seems very unlikely to me. His posts also strongly imply that organic farming lobbyists are pumping billions of dollars into mandatory labeling campaigns and anti-GMO laws for reasons that are more driven by ideology than by profit, which seems really naive but I guess it could be true (it totally isn't though) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I call bullshit. First you're going to need to specify exactly what ground issues you're talking about, and then we can talk about whether or not either of the "camps" want to solve them. Alright, I'll play ball with a few. 1. It is organic or conventional, but not sustainable. Conventional agriculture in conjunction with GMOs, gets a bad rap yes but there is incredible pressure to buy into a total system. You cannot buy untreated seed; crops like canola will always come with something like a neonicotinoid applied. As such, you do not have an option to reduce your residue load. Additionally , you have your hybrid seed usually packaged with a herbicide, such as glyphosate. Why buy a Round-up Ready seed if you aren't going to spray? The reps also help to feed into a sense of paranoia for pests and talk up chemicals like an insurance package. They aren't wrong, it will control the pests but will you even have pests to control when the time comes? Stuff like the bloody neonics don't even stay in the group in some fields, there can be significant ground water losses. We are still incredibly leaky sometimes with our applications but there is little incentive to push techniques further. Instead we are to wait on tech like the slow release nitrogen formulas to fix our agronomic mistakes for us. When most of your agronomists are sales driven and work on commission, you are going to get a bunch of dodgy applications. Doesn't help that a leaf looking funny is reason to reach for the sprayer. Not like organic is some grand savior of the environment. Producers are usually in the dark as to what is coming in that year and they don't get to lean on their triggers like the sprayers. June is a hell of a time to look at a field and not be on a sprayer, takes nerves of steel to bet against an application. If you don't even have that trigger, need to have something. Colleagues joke about the "rapers", who just till and disk it all down over and over just to be sure they got nothing to start problems with. This is incredibly damaging to the environment and your nitrous oxide emissions are going to be through the roof. If there was an environmental benefit, it can be quickly lost. Intercropping is a wonderful tool but I've had a producer who got his intercrop fields downgraded substantially just cause they didn't want to deal with peas in the oats. Of course there is going to be dockage issues but organic is a premium product and the processor doesn't want to deal with it. What is the point of eliminating your mono culture practice if you can't sell it? Now I am not against organic producers but they don't have a complete toolset yet to lean on, at least one that tries to enhance biodiversity over just spraying something different than the other guys.The research just ain't there yet for strong field material or in an accessible way for the producer. There are some groups out there trying to do things differently, such as the Blue Dasher Farm guys http://bluedasher.farm/, but they still have a lot of work to go to get their programs off the ground in a meaningful way. I'll give the university and feds their due too but they are too few and distracted to change things. Organic has some high and mighty morals attached to it but in the end, it is still just the same old business. 2. Rural powerlessness The average age of a farmer in the US is 58 years. Land prices are huge and incredibly prohibitive to get into for the younger generations. A farmer starting out might be lucky to get a few hundred acres, while people can be still struggling on a few hundred hectares. Many need to have extra income in the city just to make ends meet with what they are able to have. Your margins are slim as hell and if you mess up maybe just for a year, you lose everything and are bought out for a pittance. As of 2014 data, a farmer in the US is just under two times as likely as the general population to commit suicide. We may be losing knowledge faster than we are gaining and just using technology as a crutch. Lots of people lean on that corn subsidy pretty heavily too, hoping that if they just keep yield up, they could make another year. Course there are always those, whether by skill or luck, just turn out fine but there are a lot of ways things go pear-shaped. A rural town just ain't what it used to be and while a lot of that is due to the times, there is real suffering out there and people are blind to it. Whether you are organic or conventional, it doesn't really change things out there. You just might have a few more disposable farm hands and a different label on the truck. A stronger social and economic network needs to be out there to help people, else we are going to keep grabbing at stop gap solutions which burn environmental and social capital to keep things running smoothly. 3. Water management I still kill myself whenever I go to a grocery store and see Californian vegetables for sale. Isn't that state on the absolute last of its aquifers? There are a lot of ways to enhance water use efficiency but I still see a lot of resistance to techniques like zero till. California, as I understand it, only has a 3% utilization of zero till though they stand to benefit the most from the technique. Water and soil losses are a major concern, only amplified by climate change ensuring we are probably going to lose a big chunk of our arable land in the near future. There is little that the agri-chemical guys nor the organic proponents have for solutions. Oh I see a lot about permaculture and how new organic techniques are sweepingly better but if that was true, somebody somewhere would be making a killing. While California still uses conventional tillage, 35% of America's farmland is claimed to be under a zero till system. If it works, someone will try it eventually, especially a technique that has been around since the 1970s. There is talk about drought resistant GMOs coming up but they are still seem so far away yet. Can't say I blame them cause drought resistance is quite a complex trait but they don't have a solution either as of now. Considering the state of California's water reserves, I would think a "minimal water" label would be nicer than a "non-GMO" label. You can be an organic or conventional farmer and still could protect the land and the water better than what we are doing currently. The oxygen in the room though is being taken up cause the yuppies want to scream at the gene jocks over activated GMO walnuts. Hypha fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He started by asking why there are no serious in-depth studies into how labels effect buying patterns, ignoring that there almost definitely are but that no one in the thread is particularly equipped to provide them (or interested in providing them). This is mostly accurate. I agree that the case I have put forward is unlikely, but given that there alternative methods of argument to be made, it seems foolhardy to be vested in it, especially without direct evidence (which makes me worry a bit given your assertion that you don't have an interest in providing evidence, given your hostility to even the proposal that this could be incorrect). My case wrt lobbying was more so that those things can be done simultaneously, and if anything makes the profit aspect more vehement, because there is an ideological bent to making that money. Neither of us can directly prove such a claim in any event. I had found three studies that we related to the topic. They all focused on either purchasing intentions, or examining factors attributing to those intentions. The closest to what I was looking for (this one) was based on a eurozone survey that directly asked people about inclinations to buy food that was labelled as not having GMOs, and then the same but having. None of them directly assess purchasing behaviours though. I have concerns about the statistical analyses performed in this study, as they have made some odd choices as to what procedures to run and what they report as findings (why are they running ANOVAs with ordered-categorical DVs, for instance).This study was assessing health, taste and pricing, and certainly lends support to the case but does not directly ask if people will or won't buy, but rather how much they would pay. It would seem that a lot of the motivation for purchasing are health driven, and that purchasing value is primarily motivated by the presence of labels associated with "healthier good" (I suspect that a GMO-free label does the same, at least for some). This study implies that a large proportion of people don't actually give a poo poo either way, but despite this claim to be more likely to buy GMO-free labelled food, particularly if their healthiness is ambiguous. My interest in more direct studies comes mostly from a tendency in psychology to equivocate findings that people claim they will perform a behaviour with them actually doing the behaviour, despite numerous studies indicating the opposite. This is an example of labelling that failed to change behaviours, despite people indicating that they would purchase products labelled as such in other studies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:This is mostly accurate. I agree that the case I have put forward is unlikely, but given that there alternative methods of argument to be made, it seems foolhardy to be vested in it See this is the part that I don't get, you keep suggesting that you shouldn't be "vested" or "heavily invested" in that kind of argument. Can you point at any posters in this thread for whom that would be true? What does "heavily invested" in an argument even mean? quote:I had found three studies that we related to the topic. They all focused on either purchasing intentions, or examining factors attributing to those intentions. The closest to what I was looking for (this one) was based on a eurozone survey that directly asked people about inclinations to buy food that was labelled as not having GMOs, and then the same but having. None of them directly assess purchasing behaviours though. I have concerns about the statistical analyses performed in this study, as they have made some odd choices as to what procedures to run and what they report as findings (why are they running ANOVAs with ordered-categorical DVs, for instance).This study was assessing health, taste and pricing, and certainly lends support to the case but does not directly ask if people will or won't buy, but rather how much they would pay. It would seem that a lot of the motivation for purchasing are health driven, and that purchasing value is primarily motivated by the presence of labels associated with "healthier good" (I suspect that a GMO-free label does the same, at least for some). This study implies that a large proportion of people don't actually give a poo poo either way, but despite this claim to be more likely to buy GMO-free labelled food, particularly if their healthiness is ambiguous. AKA, to no one's surprise, there's evidence to suggest that labeling harms peoples' perception of food by either A) implying that X-free food is healthier/better/etc. or that B) implying that contains-X food is less healthy/worse/etc. quote:My interest in more direct studies comes mostly from a tendency in psychology to equivocate findings that people claim they will perform a behaviour with them actually doing the behaviour, despite numerous studies indicating the opposite. This is an example of labelling that failed to change behaviours, despite people indicating that they would purchase products labelled as such in other studies. People already have a general sense for which foods are healthy and which aren't, so I wouldn't expect that labeling foods as such would change buying behavior. Adding "contains beans" to a can of beans won't change buying behavior because the consumer already knew that there were beans in that can. But adding "CONTAINS GMOS" to a bunch of products changes the perception of which products are healthy, because it sounds scary and the average consumer doesn't understand that GMO food is no different from other food. This is an important difference between the study that you've linked and what we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
The most annoying thing about the GMO thing is you can't even explain to people why the Vermont labeling is dumb because they just start on the "BIG AG SURE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT" because the internet told them Monsanto murders farmers. I just think it should be kept federal because it's loving common sense. You don't start letting every state pass whatever food labelling laws or you get a mess that people just stop reading because half of it is "the state of ohio recognizes this product as containing fruits picked by illegal immigrants" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
"WARNING: This product contains GMO's known to the State of Vermont to be worth labeling."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:People already have a general sense for which foods are healthy and which aren't, so I wouldn't expect that labeling foods as such would change buying behavior. Adding "contains beans" to a can of beans won't change buying behavior because the consumer already knew that there were beans in that can. But adding "CONTAINS GMOS" to a bunch of products changes the perception of which products are healthy, because it sounds scary and the average consumer doesn't understand that GMO food is no different from other food. This is an important difference between the study that you've linked and what we're talking about. However, "made from turtle beans, sweet onions, and sea salt" totally will. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010880401810119
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:See this is the part that I don't get, you keep suggesting that you shouldn't be "vested" or "heavily invested" in that kind of argument. Can you point at any posters in this thread for whom that would be true? What does "heavily invested" in an argument even mean? Primarily, that you have become hostile merely for suggesting that as I have, and that you have overtly made the harm claim without any direct supportive evidence (to the point of dismissing any need or desire to produce any). Not to mention that I only have to go back one page of this thread to identify at two other posts supporting this particular position, although obviously to degree to which they hold it I would not know. QuarkJets posted:AKA, to no one's surprise, there's evidence to suggest that labeling harms peoples' perception of food by either A) implying that X-free food is healthier/better/etc. or that B) implying that contains-X food is less healthy/worse/etc. Indeed, although the effect that will have on actual buying behaviors remain to be demonstrated. QuarkJets posted:People already have a general sense for which foods are healthy and which aren't, so I wouldn't expect that labeling foods as such would change buying behavior. Adding "contains beans" to a can of beans won't change buying behavior because the consumer already knew that there were beans in that can. But adding "CONTAINS GMOS" to a bunch of products changes the perception of which products are healthy, because it sounds scary and the average consumer doesn't understand that GMO food is no different from other food. This is an important difference between the study that you've linked and what we're talking about. This may be, but again, people also indicated that they would change their buying behaviors as a result of the labeling changes, but then did not actually do so when given the opportunity a review of literature on front-of-package labelling. The takeaway from this was that despite a decent evidence base supporting people changing their behavior, when their behavior was actually examined those changes were not found. I admit, however, that in the case of GMO food that the information being provided is of a different sort: people are not easily able to determine what foods do and do not contain them, or are them (in the case of produce).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:This may be, but again, people also indicated that they would change their buying behaviors as a result of the labeling changes, but then did not actually do so when given the opportunity a review of literature on front-of-package labelling. The takeaway from this was that despite a decent evidence base supporting people changing their behavior, when their behavior was actually examined those changes were not found. I admit, however, that in the case of GMO food that the information being provided is of a different sort: people are not easily able to determine what foods do and do not contain them, or are them (in the case of produce). How are you getting a robust null effect from Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition labeling systems on consumers posted:Summary systems may influence consumers to purchase healthier products. However, more research is needed to assess the influence of nutrient-specific labels on consumers’ purchases. This review identified few studies that compared consumers’ ability to select healthier products using nutrient-specific systems that incorporate text and color codes with multiple-level summary icons. More research is needed to determine the effects of FOP nutrition labeling on consumers’ actual shopping behaviors and dietary intakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Primarily, that you have become hostile merely for suggesting that as I have, and that you have overtly made the harm claim without any direct supportive evidence (to the point of dismissing any need or desire to produce any). Not to mention that I only have to go back one page of this thread to identify at two other posts supporting this particular position, although obviously to degree to which they hold it I would not know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
We have the irradiated food labeling we can look at for a comparison. A glance at the wikipedia page appears to list a couple papers on the consumer effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Etalommi posted:How are you getting a robust null effect from I messed up how I wrote that out, my apologies for the lack of clarity. That was a continuation on an existing dialogue, and was there to demonstrate that while there was indeed a lot of really strong evidence to support the labels doing something, when actual behavior was looked as (I cited a study of that sort in a previous post) there was not any differences found. twodot posted:There's no need for evidence, there are two possible outcomes from labeling laws: A) they have any sort of effect on people's behavior, or B) they don't have an effect. A is harmful because there's no rational reason to change your behavior when you learn something may have some unspecified genetic modification and B is harmful because we created regulation for no reason. I agree with that. The problem arises when you take A as given, because if you are indeed wrong for whatever reason, moving toward B as a substitute will be more challenging in practice. This is due to you having supported a case that was not actually true; while it is logically reasonable that the other position also should remain, people are dumb and will judge the merit of the argument on that failure rather than it's whole, particularly when the whole is not well expressed (because A was taken as given).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:45
|
|