Why dumb people should not vote - Washington votes no to GMO labeling

[TreVader]

Foods certified as organic cannot contain GMOs.

Seems pretty easy to get non-GMO foods to me.

Do you know what Organic literally means? It means it contains carbon.



As much as I can't stand conservatives, hippies are just as bad. They both have zero understanding of how things work in the world.

There have been many studies that show Organic food products hold zero benefits to the human diet. In fact, because organic foods tend to be more expensive, they are worse.


Go hug trees somewhere else.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why dumb people should not vote

Who gets to decide who is too dumb to vote? Judging by the responses in this thread so far, your peers seem to find you lacking. Are you willing to concede that you are too dumb to vote?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Actually isn't the whole point of this thread complaining that those companies won the message delivery battle as evidenced by the vote in Washington.

I guess you could say they got the me$$age across to the people who really matter. So yes in a way you are correct.

I am obviously talking about a message that targets the end consumer, but maybe they don't matter if these businesses are allowed to operate like a meat factory in 1890.

So your argument is that corporations should be forced to waste millions or billions in advertising so that American's won't be swayed by fear mongering?

Yes actually. Just like the coal industry has to do, or the nuclear industry, or any other major controversial industry. Maintaining your brand is good business sense.

Well, let me take that back. They shouldn't be forced. They can chose not to. But I they chose to not spend the money they get no sympathy that "the well is poisoned"" and " we can't tell the American people because of fear mongering."

Fix the problem or shutup about it and deal with the consequences of your lack of brand management.

 

[nehalem256]

Well yeah, I am not denying philanthropy exists and you can make money at a non-profit.

But these companies are not non-profits. If the world is saved while they make money that is a side benefit, not the root motivation.

If the primary motivation at these companies was just improving the world then they would have a much better public perception.

Of course their motivation is making money. Why does that matter?

The only way they can make money through GMOs is by making GMO crops that are superior to the old non-GMO crops otherwise the farmers won't buy seeds from them.

 

[BoberFett]

This thread makes me think of the Portlandia sketch where they're at the restaurant talking to the waitress about the name of the chicken they want to order and whether it had a happy lilfe...

 

[zinfamous]

Good. GMO labeling is nothing more than fear mongering.

Maybe we should start requiring bottled water to be labeled with a big sticker on the front that says "Contains Dihdydrogen-Monoxide!!!!!"

pretty much, ....but I still voted yes on the CA measure last year, in an effort to stick it to the asshats at Monsanto.

It was defeated, anyway. The measure was, very much, a poorly-written joke, but Monsanto...fuck those guys.

 

[zinfamous]

Do you know what Organic literally means? It means it contains carbon.



As much as I can't stand conservatives, hippies are just as bad. They both have zero understanding of how things work in the world.

There have been many studies that show Organic food products hold zero benefits to the human diet. In fact, because organic foods tend to be more expensive, they are worse.


Go hug trees somewhere else.

man, I really hate hippies. I like the idea of organic, but I hate the organic industry. I don't see it being very legit, in its current form, when you see Dole-labeled produce in the organic section.

sorry...no.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The only way they can make money through GMOs is by making GMO crops that are superior to the old non-GMO crops otherwise the farmers won't buy seeds from them.

The only way they can make money is to SELL those seeds to farmers. Just making them gives them nothing. Almost anytime selling is involved, you can create added value through marketing.

And "superior" is perspective-based. "Superior" for the farmers? For the end consumers? To society as a whole? Or just for the seed company?

 

[theeedude]

Clearly, you've never heard of transposable elements. Entire genes can hop around or be duplicated. It isn't just random mutation.

All the more reason to ban GMO, since it can infect other plants without the farmer's permission, and then not only is his crop GMO against his wishes, but he's on the hook for patent licenses for those genes.

 

[nehalem256]

I guess you could say they got the me$$age across to the people who really matter. So yes in a way you are correct.

I am obviously talking about a message that targets the end consumer, but maybe they don't matter if these businesses are allowed to operate like a meat factory in 1890.



Yes actually. Just like the coal industry has to do, or the nuclear industry, or any other major controversial industry. Maintaining your brand is good business sense.

Well, let me take that back. They shouldn't be forced. They can chose not to. But I they chose to not spend the money they get no sympathy that "the well is poisoned"" and " we can't tell the American people because of fear mongering."

Fix the problem or shutup about it and deal with the consequences of your lack of brand management.

So basically anti-science types should be allowed to use the government to damage corporate brands without any scientific backing...

How is sticking GMO stickers on food any difference the Creation Scientists that want to stick "Evolution is just a theory" stickers on biology textbooks?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This thread makes me think of the Portlandia sketch where they're at the restaurant talking to the waitress about the name of the chicken they want to order and whether it had a happy lilfe...

Yeah, I was thinking about that old joke about vegans.

How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
Don't worry, they'll tell you.

It's the same with non-GMO foods; they'll be sure to point out their "non-GMO" credentials. Sure, you aren't going to see it in a Wal-Mart, but go into any of the higher end food stores, and every other package has "organic, hormone free, free range, non-GMO, made from corn exclusively grown by hippies using only water and love" on it. And it only costs 3 times as much as the "terrible, awful, clinically proven to be identical" GMO foods! That's a STEAL!

 

[nehalem256]

The only way they can make money is to SELL those seeds to farmers. Just making them gives them nothing. Almost anytime selling is involved, you can create added value through marketing.

And "superior" is perspective-based. "Superior" for the farmers? For the end consumers? To society as a whole? Or just for the seed company?

If the seeds are not superior to the farmer why would he buy them?

Superior can mean superior to the farmer in terms of higher yields or lower inputs of fertilizer and water. This would also seem to be a benefit to society as a whole.

None of these advantages will show up to the consumer(except perhaps as lower prices) which of course makes it a hard sell to them, because most of the time it is a value neutral proposition to the consumer.

 

[BoberFett]

All the more reason to ban GMO, since it can infect other plants without the farmer's permission, and then not only is his crop GMO against his wishes, but he's on the hook for patent licenses for those genes.

LOL, everyone point and laugh at the anti-science lefty.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So basically anti-science types should be allowed to use the government to damage corporate brands without any scientific backing...

Under the labeling proposal the government wouldn't have damaged the GMO brand. That was done when they didn't invest in marketing and they let luddites control the message.

The government was just going to force labeling. If the brand wasn't in shit shape, maybe being labeled GMO would be a good thing. Maybe it would help sales. The government isn't mandating how people feel about GMOs.

How is sticking GMO stickers on food any difference the Creation Scientists that want to stick "Evolution is just a theory" stickers on biology textbooks?

It isn't really, well except the fact that no one really profits from the evolution "brand."

How is sticking GMO stickers on food any different from Surgeon General stickers on cigarettes?

Labeling and transparency is always the best policy. If the consumer wants to make poor choices once informed then that is America. If you want to spend billions on marketing to push towards bad decisions that is America. Bitching because you don't want to spend what it takes to control your brand is uniquely unAmerican.

 

[BoberFett]

If the seeds are not superior to the farmer why would he buy them?

Superior can mean superior to the farmer in terms of higher yields or lower inputs of fertilizer and water. This would also seem to be a benefit to society as a whole.

None of these advantages will show up to the consumer(except perhaps as lower prices) which of course makes it a hard sell to them, because most of the time it is a value neutral proposition to the consumer.

Exactly.

 

[BoberFett]

Also, I have yet to hear anyone define the term GMO.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If the seeds are not superior to the farmer why would he buy them?

It is called Unique Perceived Benefit. If the farmer FEELS that an "official" GMO seed is superior to a non-GMO seed or a generic GMO seed that is all that matters. Actual benefit is a good side effect when possible.

None of these advantages will show up to the consumer(except perhaps as lower prices) which of course makes it a hard sell to them, because most of the time it is a value neutral proposition to the consumer.

Then sell how your method lowers prices then.

Wal Mart does it. They turned killing small community stores into "rolling back prices for YOU!"

Again I have ZERO sympathy if the GMO brand well is poisoned. Spend the money to fix it or rebrand.

 

[Texashiker]

How is sticking GMO stickers on food any difference

The same way as sticking "made in china" stickers on a product helps consumers. If I do not want to buy made in china, I read the label.

The whole point is to allow the consumer to make the best decision for them.

Whether the shoe comes from china, pakistan, bangladesh,,, it is still just a shoe. To ask manufacturers to put place of original labels on their products is fear mongering.

If I do not want to buy made in vietnam products, just as I do not want to buy GOM, shouldn't I have that option?

 

[xBiffx]

If the primary motivation at these companies was just improving the world then they would have a much better public perception.

And they wouldn't exist. Nor would a majority of companies.

 

[nehalem256]

Under the labeling proposal the government wouldn't have damaged the GMO brand. That was done when they didn't invest in marketing and they let luddites control the message.

The government was just going to force labeling. If the brand wasn't in shit shape, maybe being labeled GMO would be a good thing. Maybe it would help sales. The government isn't mandating how people feel about GMOs.

Fear is a powerful thing. As I pointed out earlier marketing GMOs to end consumers is hard because there is no direct benefit to them.

It isn't really, well except the fact that no one really profits from the evolution "brand."

How is sticking GMO stickers on food any different from Surgeon General stickers on cigarettes?

Labeling and transparency is always the best policy. If the consumer wants to make poor choices once informed then that is America. If you want to spend billions on marketing to push towards bad decisions that is America. Bitching because you don't want to spend what it takes to control your brand is uniquely unAmerican.

A little thing called truth? The stickers on cigarettes are fundamentally based on truth, whereas the GMO stickers are meant to imply falsehoods.

Labeling is not always the best policy. Sticking labels that are meant to do nothing other than mislead people is a horrible policy.

 

[nehalem256]

The same way as sticking "made in china" stickers on a product helps consumers. If I do not want to buy made in china, I read the label.

The whole point is to allow the consumer to make the best decision for them.

Whether the shoe comes from china, pakistan, bangladesh,,, it is still just a shoe. To ask manufacturers to put place of original labels on their products is fear mongering.

If I do not want to buy made in vietnam products, just as I do not want to buy GOM, shouldn't I have that option?

Well then maybe the point of origin labels should be taken off?

Really the only one I see anyone carrying about is Made in America vs. not made in America. And I assume those making things in America will be perfectly happy to point it out to everyone.

 

[xBiffx]

Also, I have yet to hear anyone define the term GMO.

Genetically modified organism. 😉

You've basically asked the equivalent to assault rifle in the anti gun debate.

 

[Texashiker]

Well then maybe the point of origin labels should be taken off?

In other words, keep the consumer ignorant on what they are buying.

 

[BoomerD]

Would you buy a car or truck without knowing the details? Type of motor, diesel or gas, stereo, AC/heater,,,,? If you asked about the details and the car sales person told you you were fear mongering, how would you feel?

Would you buy a home without knowing the details? Asking for a termite inspection is fear mongering.

Would you take medicine without knowing what you are taking?

But for some reason what we put in our mouth is held to a different standard?

The people of Washington said they do not need to know.

No, actually, the people of Washington bought into the lies spewed by the big food/beverage companies.

The last I heard, they had laundered over $22,000,000 through the "Grocery Manufacturers Association," a group that exists solely for this kind of activity. They were finally forced by the courts to disclose their contributors...and how much.
Here's a couple of stories about it.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ve-522-money-speaks-but-doesnt-get-last-word/


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ciation-agrees-to-disclose-campaign-finances/


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ecrets-how-the-anti-522-campaign-was-planned/


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...guson-grocery-mfgrs-hiding-money-in-campaign/


Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent about the issue. Do I think GMO foods are a bad thing? Nope...in many cases, they're a great improvement..

Do I think consumers should have the right to know if their food was produced using GMO ingredients/methods? Yes, if only because I don't trust the big corporations like Monsanto and ADM to be honest and do things that are healthy for consumers.

 

[xBiffx]

In other words, keep the consumer ignorant on what they are buying.

Got news for you. No amount of labeling is going to change that. It will only make you think you know what is going into your food. You still have no idea as you've put your faith in what goes into your food into the food maker.

But hey, if all you want it to delude yourself, you also don't need a real label for that. Just get a bunch of ACME stickers for everything and cover it all up.