|
I really, really don't think anyone on the pro-labeling side is going to make the argument "labels won't have an effect on sales". You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. Also http://www.csus.edu/envs/Documents/Theses/Fall%202014/819.GMO%20labeling.pdf While they are very clearly starting from a position of "labeling is good" they still find an effect on the price someone is willing to pay for GMO that's been labeled. Nearly all of the proposed laws are about front-of-package "clear and conspicuous" labeling, while the above paper focused on back-of-package labeling being missable as a ameliorating factor. Also, just read Vermont's law. http://www.csus.edu/envs/Documents/Theses/Fall%202014/819.GMO%20labeling.pdf It insinuates a bunch of health claims. It makes a bunch of unsupported claims about environmental impact. It is specifically designed to scare the consumer.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Coolwhoami posted: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 20, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
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). Say that I put "this product contains unsafe levels of lead" stickers on a bunch of food products. Your argument is that consumer buying behaviors would not change at all after I did that. Are you really sure that the "labeling definitely does nothing" hill is the one you want to die on? Obvious analogies aside, you can see how a "healthiness" label doesn't actually change the consumer's perception of a product, right? The study that you linked even verified that; the vast majority of participants already knew which products were healthy and which weren't, so the labels did nothing for them. When those same participants promised to change their buying behaviors, they were basically just promising to eat healthier; the labels really weren't relevant at all there. Changing consumer perception of products can have a profound impact on sales, and the whole point of GMO labeling is to change consumer perception of various products in a negative way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Labeling is lovely, but I do love when things that don't even have gmos yet have GMO Free! On the label. I'd rather see a "this product produced via sustainable farming methods" label. The only real argument about gmos is the chicken/egg of the methods it enables.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
AA is for Quitters posted:Labeling is lovely, but I do love when things that don't even have gmos yet have GMO Free! On the label. It'd be fun to watch foods with "organic" labels not qualify for sustainable farming labels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 10:23
|
|
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). lol we've been here before AA is for Quitters posted:I'd rather see a "this product produced via sustainable farming methods" label. The only real argument about gmos is the chicken/egg of the methods it enables. That'd already be covered under FTC, although if it's a third party cert mark there start being easier avenues for abuse.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
So it looks like monarch population crashes are likely due to something other than milkweed, because the population crash happens due to increased losses during the migration to Mexico rather than insufficient reproduction before the migration
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 08:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
blowfish posted:So it looks like monarch population crashes are likely due to something other than milkweed, because the population crash happens due to increased losses during the migration to Mexico rather than insufficient reproduction before the migration Seems well-supported, and the Atkinson Center isn't setting off any warning bells, but it's an early online release and there's no discussion of methodological limitations, both of which signal caution to me. Let's see what response it gets.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Seems well-supported, and the Atkinson Center isn't setting off any warning bells, but it's an early online release and there's no discussion of methodological limitations, both of which signal caution to me. Let's see what response it gets. Well, it does have sections on how they dealt with the limitations of citizen science data (some punted to the supplement), and the early release should be after peer review, just before page space becomes available in a print issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 12:57
|
|
blowfish posted:Well, it does have sections on how they dealt with the limitations of citizen science data (some punted to the supplement), and the early release should be after peer review, just before page space becomes available in a print issue. I know, but I wanna see how others in the field respond. I just don't know data methods in that area well enough to judge the quality of the work they did. I'm suspicious of early pub material because it's often done either as a headline grabber or as a target- to give respondents enough time to include takedowns in the print edition.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
At first I misread that as the paper being on Steam Early Access.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:At first I misread that as the paper being on Steam Early Access. Don't steal my ideas.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:At first I misread that as the paper being on Steam Early Access. They've already diversified to movies, why not also grab the coveted academic market?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Don't steal my ideas. No property rights apply to ideas, so I can't have stolen them. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 03:10
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:They've already diversified to movies, why not also grab the coveted academic market? Basically what arXiv already is- except that Greenlight has higher quality standards.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Basically what arXiv already is- except that Greenlight has higher quality standards. I hope you know about viXra, the preprint archive for people who can't quite cut it for arXiv.  Anyway, I apologize for this derail.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I know, but I wanna see how others in the field respond. I just don't know data methods in that area well enough to judge the quality of the work they did. I'm suspicious of early pub material because it's often done either as a headline grabber or as a target- to give respondents enough time to include takedowns in the print edition. Even expert-made collections of species records consistently include blatant nonsense data, so from what I gather (though I should mention I haven't touched proper citizen science data myself yet), it's mainly a question of whether you can justify the assumption that your dataset's crappiness is consistent enough to deal with. For rare and particularly difficult species you should check every single point (lol have fun), but for something big and flashy recorded by many people you can probably justify using the available dataset. Regarding the online first thing, iirc many ecology journals make pretty much anything available online first so it's not really a statement about the quality or relevance of the paper. Absurd Alhazred posted:I hope you know about viXra, the preprint archive for people who can't quite cut it for arXiv. It's you. You are holding the free energy revolution back. Down with the system, to arms, bring out the space quantum curvature particle powered torches and pitchforks.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Hypha posted:Alright, I'll play ball with a few. This post got lost in the usual filler found in this thread, but I just wanted to say thanks for your post. I assume that you, unlike everybody else in this thread, actually work in agriculture? Your post was way more interesting than the usual whining about misguided environmentalists. Somehow, even after 135 pages of the same posts, day in and day out, the regulars in this thread still do not get tired of it. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:35
|
|
silence_kit posted:This post got lost in the usual filler found in this thread, but I just wanted to say thanks for you post. I assume that you, unlike everybody else in this thread, actually work in agriculture? Your post was way more interesting than the usual whining about misguided environmentalists. Somehow, even after 135 pages of the same posts, day in and day out, the regulars in this thread still do not get tired of it. Because it's not what the thread's about, jackass.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because it's not what the thread's about, jackass. This thread basically functions as an outlet for Internet Science Fanboys to whine about misguided environmentalists. There was one poster in this thread who I quoted who actually seemed to know stuff about agriculture who actually wanted to talk about issues confronting agriculture and his posts got ignored in favor of more complaining about hippies' views on GMOs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 00:53
|
|
silence_kit posted:This thread basically functions as an outlet for Internet Science Fanboys to whine about misguided environmentalists. There was one poster in this thread who I quoted who actually seemed to know stuff about agriculture who actually wanted to talk about issues confronting agriculture and his posts got ignored in favor of more complaining about hippies' views on GMOs. That's because the name of the thread is: The Devil Monsanto, or Combating Scientific Ignorance Not: Modern Issues in Agriculture Modern Issues in Agriculture sounds like a fine thread. Why not go start it if you're sick of us Internet Science Fanboys?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Mods, please change the name of this thread to: Shut The gently caress Up Discendo Vox Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's because the name of the thread is: LOL, your previous post was vague. I thought you were trying to say that whining about hippies was NOT what the thread is about. Instead you are saying the opposite and you actually meant that actually trying to discuss and understand agriculture is NOT what this thread is really about. Ok, well, don't let me interrupt your circle-jerk about how dumb those hippies really are! silence_kit fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:18
|
|
Slanderer posted:Mods, please change the name of this thread to: Am I wrong? Your OP says the thread is about finding ways to combat scientific ignorance, especially in discourse with people caught up in the fringes of internet discourse. That's what the thread is about. Hypha's post was mildly interesting, but no one picked up on it because it wasn't really salient to the purpose of the thread.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Am I wrong? Your OP says the thread is about finding ways to combat scientific ignorance, especially in discourse with people caught up in the fringes of internet discourse. That's what the thread is about. Hypha's post was mildly interesting, but no one picked up on it because it wasn't really salient to the purpose of the thread. this dumb thread went off the rails after page 3 because it turns out that there just isnt that much to say about anti-scientism, but boy howdy do people want to argue about Monsanto, for years and years. as for what the thread is actually about, ill just quote myself from forever ago Slanderer posted:As the OP, this thread is actually just a honeypot for the ignorant.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
Slanderer posted:this dumb thread went off the rails after page 3 because it turns out that there just isnt that much to say about anti-scientism, but boy howdy do people want to argue about Monsanto, for years and years. Isn't that statement internally contradictory?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:LOL, your previous post was vague. I thought you were trying to say that whining about hippies was NOT what the thread is about. Instead you are saying the opposite and you actually meant that actually trying to discuss and understand agriculture is NOT what this thread is really about. Ok, well, don't let me interrupt your circle-jerk about how dumb those hippies really are! I like the idea where you create a Problems In Agriculture thread instead of complaining that this thread doesn't talk enough about problems in agriculture
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I like the idea where you create a Problems In Agriculture thread instead of complaining that this thread doesn't talk enough about problems in agriculture Gee golly, that sure would be swell! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
I think this thread would work better as an overall discussion about the rise and growth of anti-scientific beliefs in the world(or just USA). But I am too lazy to make a thread so whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I think this thread would work better as an overall discussion about the rise and growth of anti-scientific beliefs in the world(or just USA). But I am too lazy to make a thread so whatever. You could also effort post about it since it's a lot more germane to the topic than "I know about farming." Anti-science is a weird thing. I recently came across a NOT A CREATIONIST who was raging about NDT on facebook because NAC believes that there are 'serious flaws' in macro-evolution and the big bang theory. 'Serious flaws' being 'not observed by an eyewitness alive right now.'
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I think this thread would work better as an overall discussion about the rise and growth of anti-scientific beliefs in the world(or just USA). But I am too lazy to make a thread so whatever. The thread is fine. It's mostly dormant but occasionally someone posts about their hobby farm or pesticides and is promptly told to gently caress off. It's fine as a lesson in logical fallacies and how people perceive GMO vs what it actually is. The theme throughout this thread is that people desperately want to talk about agriculture in general and for whatever reason see GE as a shorthand for the problems associated with industrial agriculture. It's plainly wrong and it's useful and good to point that out. An agriculture thread would be interesting but the only reason this thread has gone on so long is that people keep conflating issues and that's a valuable - albeit frustrating - discussion in its own right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:01
|
|
Anos posted:The thread is fine. It's mostly dormant but occasionally someone posts about their hobby farm or pesticides and is promptly told to gently caress off. It's fine as a lesson in logical fallacies and how people perceive GMO vs what it actually is. It started off as a general discussion of anti-science fringe views, using Monsanto as an example. The unfortunate effect of the draw of Monsanto as a subject, coupled with the thread title's ordering effect, is that people keep perceiving it to be one-note.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Quaker Oats Accused of Being ‘Deceptive and Misleading’ After Glyphosate Detected in Oatmealquote:PepsiCo Inc.’s Quaker Oats has been accused of false advertising by a group of consumers in New York, California and Illinois, who have filed a class action lawsuit challenging the company’s claim of being “100 Percent Natural” despite having traces of the weedkiller glyphosate found in its famous oatmeal. So are they saying that Quaker Oats are supernatural? 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Quaker Oats Accused of Being ‘Deceptive and Misleading’ After Glyphosate Detected in Oatmeal How much do you want to bet that the same group of people clamoring over trace amounts of glyphosate on oats doesn't raise a stink when Organic products make the same claim but have a similar problem... or maybe don't realize how common it is to find trace amounts of literally anything anywhere? Test any organic product on the shelves and I'm certain you'll find not only glyphosate but also a host of other "unnatural" chemicals in trace amounts.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Reminds me a bit of the Taco Bell lawsuit over the fact their tacos weren't 100% American Beef like they misunderstood the ads to be saying and had stuff like spices and grease in them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
duz posted:Reminds me a bit of the Taco Bell lawsuit over the fact their tacos weren't 100% American Beef like they misunderstood the ads to be saying and had stuff like spices and grease in them. If I remember correctly, that lawsuit was alleging that the percentage of beef in the meat mix wasn't high enough for it to be legally called "beef".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:How much do you want to bet that the same group of people clamoring over trace amounts of glyphosate on oats doesn't raise a stink when Organic products make the same claim but have a similar problem... or maybe don't realize how common it is to find trace amounts of literally anything anywhere? Test any organic product on the shelves and I'm certain you'll find not only glyphosate but also a host of other "unnatural" chemicals in trace amounts. Last year there was a "study" that claimed to show GMO corn is nutritionally deficient compared to organic corn... on the basis of samples of the dirt the crops were grown in, which was measured for calories, vitamins, etc. Again, not the actual plants, but the dirt, was measured. Having trouble finding the link but it came up on a podcast. That's the kinda rigor people like this are operating under.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Plastic isn't natural and anything contained in a plastic container is going to contain trace amounts of plastic. *eyes ten million Organic products in plastic containers*
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Last year there was a "study" that claimed to show GMO corn is nutritionally deficient compared to organic corn... on the basis of samples of the dirt the crops were grown in, which was measured for calories, vitamins, etc. Again, not the actual plants, but the dirt, was measured. Having trouble finding the link but it came up on a podcast. lol I had never heard of that one. How do these people even come up with this stuff? "We've proven that GMO Corn is less healthy than Organic Form using a scientific method where we fed people samples of one corn or the other and then asked them to rate a Jimmy Buffet song"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Isn't that just going to run smack dab into the purity levels and fail? The FDA uses thresholds for purity of foodstuffs, since it's impossible to get anything 100% pure, especially at scale. The levels the plaintiffs are asserting in the product in question (assuming the test was valid, which I'm skeptical about) is almost certainly de minimis.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:47
|
|