anti-vaccers usually white, rich, and private schooled

[Monk5127]

I plead guilty for not researching the site. But my point stands...liberals are the ones pushing for GMO labeling despite it being scientifically proven to have zero affect on human beings.

What's wrong with labeling food? Harmful or not I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

 

[Brainonska511]

BTW, 92% of ALL Americans want labeling for GMO foods. I am apparently in a fringe minority who believes we shouldn't require labeling for things not proven harmful to our health. What a crank I am. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567

I'm highly skeptical of those polls. With numbers like that, they probably asked the question as: "Should GMO foods be labeled?" If you don't know what a GMO is, you'd probably still say yes, since what's the harm in more information.

In a poll run by Rutgers, only ~8% of respondents said they would want to see GMO foods labeled when asked in an unprompted way (e.g. "what labels would you like to see on your foods?").

The "right-to-know" labeling movement isn't about providing more information to consumers. They're pissed that the science doesn't support their position and can't push through a full ban, so they instead try to go for these de facto bans - get a label on it, spread lots of false information to the public to scare them, and then no one will buy GMO foods. Plus, if the public became legitimately informed, they would realize that "organic" and "natural" are total BS terms and that they've been ripped off compared to if they had simply stuck with conventional foods.

What's wrong with labeling food? Harmful or not I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

They're not labeled because there is no scientific rationale to do it. Corn is corn. Carrying a trait for BT or glyphosate resistance doesn't change the nutritional profile and the method for inserting those genes is no more risky than other "conventional" methods that have been used for decades or longer. A label that said "GMO" doesn't even tell you what was done, which organism it was, etc... it's useless.

Plus, other mutagenic methods that alter far more DNA at a time are not labeled - radiation (eg: ruby red grape fruits) and chemical mutagenesis (like seedless fruits) get a free pass.

 

[woolfe9998]

I plead guilty for not researching the site. But my point stands...liberals are the ones pushing for GMO labeling despite it being scientifically proven to have zero affect on human beings.

Point of clarification of my last post. I did not say earlier that mainly liberals support the labeling. What polling has shown is that more liberals believe GMO foods are harmful to our health. Polling shows support for labeling is extremely high across the board. Possibly higher among liberals, but very high among every group. I guess people think there is no harm in labeling regardless. I don't agree with that, but apparently it's what most people believe.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm highly skeptical of those polls. With numbers like that, they probably asked the question as: "Should GMO foods be labeled?" If you don't know what a GMO is, you'd probably still say yes, since what's the harm in more information.

In a poll run by Rutgers, only ~8% of respondents said they would want to see GMO foods labeled when asked in an unprompted way (e.g. "what labels would you like to see on your foods?").

The "right-to-know" labeling movement isn't about providing more information to consumers. They're pissed that the science doesn't support their position and can't push through a full ban, so they instead try to go for these de facto bans - get a label on it, spread lots of false information to the public to scare them, and then no one will buy GMO foods. Plus, if the public became legitimately informed, they would realize that "organic" and "natural" are total BS terms and that they've been ripped off compared to if they had simply stuck with conventional foods.

I can't say I disagree with anything you've said here. I don't support labeling for anything that isn't proven to be a health hazard, let alone things proven not to be. On the other hand, I think labeling is a good idea, when it provides information that is actually relevant to our health. For example, calories, fat, carbs, etc.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What's wrong with labeling food? Harmful or not I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

Labeling will mislead and falsely alarm customers. It makes no difference whether or not a food is GMO.

 

[MongGrel]

Labeling will mislead and falsely alarm customers. It makes no difference whether or not a food is GMO.

You're so full of it, it's ridiculous sometimes.

Just because you can formulate a 3 or 4 syllable word more effectively than some of the ilk running amok, does not make your deductive reasoning/logic any better.

And also as I've stated over time, the Einstein quote does not either.

 

[Vic]

Anti-vax crazies come in all political flavors. There's the anti-pHARMa privileged left, the infowars kool-aid libertarians, and the don't-interfere-with-God's-judgment religious right, among many others.
This is so self-evident that any argument to the contrary is really just trolling.

 

[woolfe9998]

What's wrong with labeling food? Harmful or not I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

Suppose you manufacture a product which contains something that has been researched and determined to be safe. Yet there is widespread misinformation and propaganda convincing people it is not safe. You really think it's fair that you have to apply the label?

I'll tell you what. Put a label on it that says, "contains genetically modified organisms, which research has so far determined pose no health risk." That is entirely accurate, so I assume you wouldn't object.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Suppose you manufacture a product which contains something that has been researched and determined to be safe. Yet there is widespread misinformation and propaganda convincing people it is not safe. You really think it's fair that you have to apply the label?

I'll tell you what. Put a label on it that says, "contains genetically modified organisms, which research has so far determined pose no health risk." That is entirely accurate, so I assume you wouldn't object.

While we're at it, let's put this on the label for non-GMO foods as well... "contains non-genetically modified organisms, which research has so far determined poses no health risk."

 

[Brainonska511]

Suppose you manufacture a product which contains something that has been researched and determined to be safe. Yet there is widespread misinformation and propaganda convincing people it is not safe. You really think it's fair that you have to apply the label?

I'll tell you what. Put a label on it that says, "contains genetically modified organisms, which research has so far determined pose no health risk." That is entirely accurate, so I assume you wouldn't object.

There are numerous other problems with labeling: - Vermont doesn't require cheese to be labeled as GMO, despite > 80% of cheeses using bioengineered renet from E. coli. And last time I looked into it, animals that are fed GMOs are exempt from being labeled GMO themselves.

Yet something like refined sugar from a GMO sugar beet would have to be labeled, yet it is chemically identical to refined sugar from sugar cane. Definitely makes sense.

Sometimes, I feel I should go into the food business. I'll slap a label on my stuff which says "Contains No Rat Feces". It's not lying either, but it will make people think twice about buying competing products.

 

[woolfe9998]

There are numerous other problems with labeling: - Vermont doesn't require cheese to be labeled as GMO, despite > 80% of cheeses using bioengineered renet from E. coli. And last time I looked into it, animals that are fed GMOs are exempt from being labeled GMO themselves.

Yet something like refined sugar from a GMO sugar beet would have to be labeled, yet it is chemically identical to refined sugar from sugar cane. Definitely makes sense.

Sometimes, I feel I should go into the food business. I'll slap a label on my stuff which says "Contains No Rat Feces". It's not lying either, but it will make people think twice about buying competing products.

Doesn't surprise me given that cheese is a big business in Vermont and probably a powerful lobby with their state legislature.

As for the rest of it, the entire premise of GMO labeling is totally arbitrary to begin with. They may as well require labeling about 100 other health- irrelevant facts about the product. So the inconsistencies in all of it should surprise no one.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Sometimes, I feel I should go into the food business. I'll slap a label on my stuff which says "Contains No Rat Feces". It's not lying either, but it will make people think twice about buying competing products.

Interesting fact is that the FDA has standards that allow a certain amount of rat poop in your food.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-totally-disgusting-things-the-fda-allows-in-your-food/

IOW you may have a pretty awesome idea there! :thumbsup:

 

[Victorian Gray]

You mean like all those conservatives inhabiting college campuses across the first world who believe that feelings are more important than facts? Oh wait...

I'm not sure what you think you got over on me there you pathetic douchebag, I was merely predicting what Moonbeam's response would be.

That's mainly a (somewhat misrepresented) US phenomenon. You know, American exceptionalism...

 

[kage69]

Please for the love of god - show me ANY evidence backing up your assertion that the anti-vacc nutbags are in anyway a part of the conservative group.

Really?

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak

C'mon now. How did you miss that? The evangelical crowd, republican heavy I might add, has been at the forefront of this kind of thinking for some time now, have you been in a coma or something? Prison? The Jenny McCarthy types are just the most recent batch of idiots to take up the anti-vaccine banner.

(I should have added that thankfully that church reversed it's stance, credit where credit is due, but it's too bad people got sick to set it in motion)

 

[HeXen]

I only refuse vaccines because every time I get one...I get some other strain of flu, usually the stomach flu within a few weeks which I was told the vaccine does nothing for stomach flu anyway...so if it doesn't protect against all the flu's then why should I care enough to bother?

 

[Strk]

I only refuse vaccines because every time I get one...I get some other strain of flu, usually the stomach flu within a few weeks which I was told the vaccine does nothing for stomach flu anyway...so if it doesn't protect against all the flu's then why should I care enough to bother?

Because stomach flu has nothing to do with the flu other than having flu in the commonly used term for it.

 

[JD50]

I only refuse vaccines because every time I get one...I get some other strain of flu, usually the stomach flu within a few weeks which I was told the vaccine does nothing for stomach flu anyway...so if it doesn't protect against all the flu's then why should I care enough to bother?

I couldn't agree more. This is why I don't get any vaccines, if one vaccine doesn't protect against every single disease why should I care enough to bother?

I don't take antibiotics either. I had an ear infection when I was a kid, took some antibiotics, it cleared up the ear infection but it didn't do a damn thing for my seasonal allergies. To top it all off, a few weeks later I fell while playing basketball and fractured my knee. Haven't touched them since, and what do you know, haven't fractured my knee again either. I still have those seasonal allergies though, the antibiotics probably made those worse.

 

[thraashman]

Labeling will mislead and falsely alarm customers. It makes no difference whether or not a food is GMO.

You're so full of it, it's ridiculous sometimes.

Just because you can formulate a 3 or 4 syllable word more effectively than some of the ilk running amok, does not make your deductive reasoning/logic any better.

And also as I've stated over time, the Einstein quote does not either.

There are very few times I will agree with DSF, but he's right on the money with this one. Literally every study ever done has said that GMO foods are no less safe than their conventional crops counterparts. The entire purpose for labeling is so that the organic industry can trick low information consumers into ignoring GMO foods and instead buying the more expensive organic ones (which are overwhelmingly worse for the planet too actually).

 

[BoberFett]

That's mainly a (somewhat misrepresented) US phenomenon. You know, American exceptionalism...

False, check your own Canadian campuses or the UK. It's a spreading cancer.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There are very few times I will agree with DSF, but he's right on the money with this one. Literally every study ever done has said that GMO foods are no less safe than their conventional crops counterparts. The entire purpose for labeling is so that the organic industry can trick low information consumers into ignoring GMO foods and instead buying the more expensive organic ones (which are overwhelmingly worse for the planet too actually).

MongGrel is one of the 2 or 3 people I have on 'ignore' and, as such, I rarely see his posts unless someone quotes him. This is also a rarity since nobody appears to want to converse with him either. Poor, poor MongGrel....clueless beyond measure.

 

[Victorian Gray]

False, check your own Canadian campuses or the UK. It's a spreading cancer.

Whatever you say bunky.

 

[werepossum]

This is totally different than major opposition to vaccinations. Not addressing anything else in the rest of the comment.

That's an excellent point. Parents should have the final say - assuming they are willing to live with the consequences. No vaccinations, no public school or day-cares, for your and others' children's protection.

Last time I checked is was Democrats broadly pushing for GMO labeling. Or am I mistaken?

But that's different. I have no fear of GMO foods, yet I support labeling of origin and modifications. I want knowledge, even if I have no fear. That way if I have some obscure reaction, I can cut out, say, GMO wheat or Guatemalan tomatoes and see if that stops it.

Anti-vax crazies come in all political flavors. There's the anti-pHARMa privileged left, the infowars kool-aid libertarians, and the don't-interfere-with-God's-judgment religious right, among many others.
This is so self-evident that any argument to the contrary is really just trolling.

I suspect you are correct. The only across-the-board anti-vax people I've personally encountered are liberal hippie types, and the only vaccines of which I've heard conservative complaints are those forced on 12 year old girls for sexually transmitted diseases. But I'm thinking the anti-vax people are aggressively counter-culture, so if your area is predominantly conservative like mine they are probably liberal whereas if your area is San Francisco they are probably conservative.

I've seen some horrific effects of vaccines in the Michael Dun Center, but the math is as one-sided as one could ever find. It's like stowing away underneath a moving railroad car to avoid being struck by a meteorite.

 

[Brainonska511]

But that's different. I have no fear of GMO foods, yet I support labeling of origin and modifications. I want knowledge, even if I have no fear. That way if I have some obscure reaction, I can cut out, say, GMO wheat or Guatemalan tomatoes and see if that stops it.

The labeling being proposed offers none of that knowledge. GMO doesn't tell you what was changed and plenty of plants are put on the market without the safety testing required of GMO-based varieties (the "traditional" methods are presumed to be safe). Plus, allergenicity is one of the properties frequently tested for - again, something that is not done with conventional methods. (And for the record, there is no GMO wheat currently on the market)

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Anti-vax crazies come in all political flavors. There's the anti-pHARMa privileged left, the infowars kool-aid libertarians, and the don't-interfere-with-God's-judgment religious right, among many others.
This is so self-evident that any argument to the contrary is really just trolling.

Sounds about right...

Selfish ignorant douches.

 

[werepossum]

The labeling being proposed offers none of that knowledge. GMO doesn't tell you what was changed and plenty of plants are put on the market without the safety testing required of GMO-based varieties (the "traditional" methods are presumed to be safe). Plus, allergenicity is one of the properties frequently tested for - again, something that is not done with conventional methods. (And for the record, there is no GMO wheat currently on the market)

I think simply noting that something is GMO and by whom is probably sufficient. As far as allergies, I don't expect my government to protect me from everything. I am capable of figuring out if I have a problem and altering inputs to isolate the cause. Government cannot possibly do that; people are far too diverse, genetically and in other environmental conditions.

As a rule, corporations fighting simple and inexpensive labeling requirements have reasons for spending that money. While I personally have nothing against GM food, their actions make me wonder what they know that I don't.