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

[zinfamous]

No, but that is not the problem.

The problem is that biotechnology companies force farmers to sign exclusivity contracts when purchasing their genetically engineered seeds and crops. These grower's contracts prevent farmers from being able to store seeds from year to year, which the biotech companies claim would be a patent infringement. But the farmers can't compete without GMO seed, so basically these biotech companies control the food supply.

Personally when I vote with my own dollar I buy non-GMO not for health reasons, but to not support this sort of business model. I want labeling to facilitate that choice and to bring attention to the way these businesses are ruining the GMO brand with their business practices.

eggsactly!

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

It has nothing to do with attitude or faith. It has to do with a very basic understanding of fundamental economic principles that drive product sales.

If you want to back out of the discussion by mumbling some gibberish about snakebites feel free though.

This reminds me of the story of a Bedouin who came to a city and bought Halva calling it experience because he had been taught that there are two things in life, dates and experience, and he knew what a date is.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

If you plant your squash and your zucchini close together, they will cross pollinate and produce a hybrid.

If you splice the genes of a mold into the genes of a squash, you have a GMO.

GMO can have genes in it that do not occur naturally.

Hybrids carry the genes of the parent plants, or parent animals.

A lot of the plants and farm animals we use today are hybrids. Meaning they have been selectively bred over centuries. But they are still true animals or true plants.

If you breed a donkey and a horse, you get a hybrid called a mule.

My barred rock chicken does not have plant genes spliced in with its genes. But it was selectively bred several hundred years ago for certain traits.

A few things:
1) DNA from molds (along with viruses, fungi, and bacteria) can, and do, swap spots in genomes with plants and animals. (one source among many: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17809503). By your logic, humans are GMO's.
2) What exactly is an "unnatural gene"? Pretty sure that it doesn't matter if the gene is in a bacteria, fish, virus, bird, or something else... it's still natural. Just because it's put in another living thing doesn't make it unnatural. Everything in the universe comes from "natural" sources.
3) If your barred rock chicken has a selective trait bred for (say more resistant to avian flu) and another barred rock chicken has a selective trait implanted in its genome for resistance to numerous flu viruses, then what is the difference outside of how selective that trait was introduced into the genome? I bet that if you take those two hypothetical chickens ate their eggs in a blind taste test, or ate them in a blind taste test, you couldn't tell the difference.

 

[theeedude]

A few things:
1) DNA from molds (along with viruses, fungi, and bacteria) can, and do, swap spots in genomes with plants and animals. (one source among many: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17809503). By your logic, humans are GMO's.
2) What exactly is an "unnatural gene"? Pretty sure that it doesn't matter if the gene is in a bacteria, fish, virus, bird, or something else... it's still natural. Just because it's put in another living thing doesn't make it unnatural. Everything in the universe comes from "natural" sources.
3) If your barred rock chicken has a selective trait bred for (say more resistant to avian flu) and another barred rock chicken has a selective trait implanted in its genome for resistance to numerous flu viruses, then what is the difference outside of how selective that trait was introduced into the genome? I bet that if you take those two hypothetical chickens ate their eggs in a blind taste test, or ate them in a blind taste test, you couldn't tell the difference.

If it's natural and happens anyways, why are there patents on GMO genes?

 

[hal2kilo]

If it's natural and happens anyways, why are there patents on GMO genes?

Cause SCOTUS says it's cool.

 

[Texashiker]

A few things:

<snip>

you couldn't tell the difference.

Not a gmo debate thread.

This is about consumer education, choice and the free market.

The people in Washington decided they wanted to stay ignorant.

 

[ThinClient]

Not a gmo debate thread.

This is about consumer education, choice and the free market.

The people in Washington decided they wanted to stay ignorant.

What's the point of costing additional money to redesign labels for literally every single company that sells food just to make the mind-numbingly obvious statement that the processed and prepared food that you're about to eat contains GMO?

Making laws just for the sake of making laws is stupid. The bigger your government gets, the worse your quality of life will be after a point. We are beyond that point.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No, but that is not the problem.

The problem is that biotechnology companies force farmers to sign exclusivity contracts when purchasing their genetically engineered seeds and crops. These grower's contracts prevent farmers from being able to store seeds from year to year, which the biotech companies claim would be a patent infringement. But the farmers can't compete without GMO seed, so basically these biotech companies control the food supply.

Personally when I vote with my own dollar I buy non-GMO not for health reasons, but to not support this sort of business model. I want labeling to facilitate that choice and to bring attention to the way these businesses are ruining the GMO brand with their business practices.

That's not a function of GMO crops, that's a function of specific corporate business practices. Adding GMO labeling to the end product doesn't change anything about the way giant farming corporations conduct business; hell, it doesn't even tell you which particular company is responsible for the GMO crop that was used in the production of the food stuff. If your goal is to raise awareness about the business practices of Monsanto, requiring GMO food to be labeled is a pretty circuitous route to take. If anything, we should change the laws about what constitutes acceptable business practice with regards to GMO seeds (ie, storing them is not patent infringement), not feed into bizarre paranoia that eating a genetically modified piece of corn is going to turn someone into a mutant.

 

[Texashiker]

What's the point of costing additional money to redesign labels for literally every single company that sells food just to make the mind-numbingly obvious statement that the processed and prepared food that you're about to eat contains GMO?

Would you say the same thing if this was a vegan asking food companies to label if their products contain animal or fish?

Would you say the same thing if a muslim group was asking for pork to be labeled?

Would you say the same thing if a hindu asked for anything containing beef to be labeled as such?

 

[ThinClient]

Would you say the same thing if this was a vegan asking food companies to label if their products contain animal or fish?

Food labels are already required to list every ingredient. Your question is fucking stupid.

Would you say the same thing if a muslim group was asking for pork to be labeled?

No, because fuck religion and fuck Islam in particular.

Would you say the same thing if a hindu asked for anything containing beef to be labeled as such?

See my first sentence in this post.

 

[Texashiker]

Food labels are already required to list every ingredient.

Then why not extend that to gmo products?

Let me guess, because it is fear mongering?

 

[ThinClient]

Then why not extend that to gmo products?

Let me guess, because it is fear mongering?

Any product, GMO or not, is required to show what ingredients are in the package. The label isn't required to state whether or not the ingredient has been biogenetically engineered to grow heartier in shit soil or grow twice as big in fertile soil. Why does that matter? Do you have any evidence to show that GMO foods are dangerous? Do you have any evidence to show that GMO presents any sort of danger whatsoever?

Why do you give a shit whether or not something is GMO?

 

[Texashiker]

Food labels are already required to list every ingredient.

And I remember when food companies fought tooth and nail to stop such labeling.

The same debates were going on then as are now with gmo.

Why does that matter? Do you have any evidence to show that GMO foods are dangerous? Do you have any evidence to show that GMO presents any sort of danger whatsoever?

Why do you give a shit whether or not something is GMO?

Not a gmo debate thread.

There are people out there who like to know what they are eating.

 

[BoberFett]

That's not a function of GMO crops, that's a function of specific corporate business practices. Adding GMO labeling to the end product doesn't change anything about the way giant farming corporations conduct business; hell, it doesn't even tell you which particular company is responsible for the GMO crop that was used in the production of the food stuff. If your goal is to raise awareness about the business practices of Monsanto, requiring GMO food to be labeled is a pretty circuitous route to take. If anything, we should change the laws about what constitutes acceptable business practice with regards to GMO seeds (ie, storing them is not patent infringement), not feed into bizarre paranoia that eating a genetically modified piece of corn is going to turn someone into a mutant.

100% this ^^^

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There are people out there who like to know what they are eating.

Requiring companies to label foods made with GMO crops is tantamount to requiring companies to label the specific breed of animal that made your meat, eggs or dairy; who cares if they're the same species, I deserve to know whether that frozen patty is Hereford or Angus! And, sure, having more information isn't a bad thing. But at a certain point, it's basically meaningless for most people. And since it's impossible to implement something like this for free, you have to justify the cost. Saying "consumers deserve a choice" is a meaningless platitude without taking into account whether that choice justifies the expense. For most people, that answer is no.

 

[poofyhairguy]

That's not a function of GMO crops, that's a function of specific corporate business practices. Adding GMO labeling to the end product doesn't change anything about the way giant farming corporations conduct business; hell, it doesn't even tell you which particular company is responsible for the GMO crop that was used in the production of the food stuff. If your goal is to raise awareness about the business practices of Monsanto, requiring GMO food to be labeled is a pretty circuitous route to take. If anything, we should change the laws about what constitutes acceptable business practice with regards to GMO seeds (ie, storing them is not patent infringement), not feed into bizarre paranoia that eating a genetically modified piece of corn is going to turn someone into a mutant.

You must have ignored every other post I made in the thread. For that one post I was talking about how I deal with the issue at a personal level. The rest have been about policy.

At a policy level that whole thing feeds into patent reform which is my #1 hot button issue. I didn't want to derail the thread so policy-wise I was making a different but equally valid argument:

If GMOs are not bad, then why is OK that the "well is poisoned?" If GMOs are a necessary part of modern life going forward then why don't we force a competition of messages and restore the GMO brand before we have to deal with this for 100 years?

These companies are stewards of the GMO brand, they are not the owners. There is nothing wrong with a little upkeep forced on them HOA-style to fix the brand so we don't have a public health problem going forward. Labeling is a way to do that. Force them to make that label a good thing, "clean-coal"-style.

The side effect that the dealings of these companies will become much more public and they will be forced to drop their least palatable policies to avoid PR hits is just a bonus.

 

[BoberFett]

You must have ignored every other post I made in the thread. For that one post I was talking about how I deal with the issue at a personal level. The rest have been about policy.

At a policy level that whole thing feeds into patent reform which is my #1 hot button issue. I didn't want to derail the thread so policy-wise I was making a different but equally valid argument:

If GMOs are not bad, then why is OK that the "well is poisoned?" If GMOs are a necessary part of modern life going forward then why don't we force a competition of messages and restore the GMO brand before we have to deal with this for 100 years?

These companies are stewards of the GMO brand, they are not the owners. There is nothing wrong with a little upkeep forced on them HOA-style to fix the brand so we don't have a public health problem going forward. Labeling is a way to do that. Force them to make that label a good thing, "clean-coal"-style.

The side effect that the dealings of these companies will become much more public and they will be forced to drop their least palatable policies to avoid PR hits is just a bonus.

That's a bass ackwards approach. Why should anyone have to fight a government-run smear campaign, which is what is being proposed here?

 

[trenchfoot]

It's a natural and logical thing for MOST folks to get a little suspicious and skeptical about why they aren't being told something they want to know about. And telling them they have nothing to worry about without telling them why in plain english just makes matters worse, which is exactly what those business folks who profit from GMO foods are doing.

The fact that GMO foods just so happens to coincidentally boost profits for its producers and would possibly hurt their bottom line if GMO labeling was required, makes keeping the people ignorant even more suspect, as the profit motive, as we all know, makes a lot of people behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise.

And arguing that it isn't necessary to label is just as pertinent to argue that it is necessary.

I don't see anything wrong with giving consumers the ability to choose for themselves what they want to or not want to eat and this is exactly what the GMO proponents want to prevent the consumer from having: the ability to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

Why is that? If GMO foods are so safe, then what's the problem with labeling as such? Why not educate the consumer and make GMO labeling a desirable selling feature? Surely the huge and profitable agribusness industry can spend a few million here and there to educate us. They can do that with ease, but choose to fight vigorously to keep people ignorant and guessing. What kind of confidence does that instill in the consumer when they are told to just shut the hell up and eat whatever they, the GMO food producers want us to eat? Isn't it logical that doing that would just make the consumer even more suspicious?

edit - What seems to be occurring within the GMO community is their concerted effort to flood the market with GMO produced foods and ingredients to the point where it wouldn't be financially or practically possible to remove GMO "tainted" foods from the chain and make it all happen before anything can be done to reverse the trend.

 

[OverVolt]

That's a bass ackwards approach. Why should anyone have to fight a government-run smear campaign, which is what is being proposed here?

How is labeling a smear campaign? All it has to say is GMO.

 

[poofyhairguy]

That's a bass ackwards approach. Why should anyone have to fight a government-run smear campaign, which is what is being proposed here?

Hey they themselves will admit they are poor stewards of the brand if they don't want to use the label. I don't want this to be like evolution where 100 years later we are debating it, or vaccines and autism that leads to a lot of bad decisions.

They should be held responsible for the state of the brand and the industry. This isn't any old product, this is our food supply.

The only reason things are this way is because this industry likes to fly under the radar. Honestly labeling isn't even needed if they will just do what they did in Washington- spend money educating people.

 

[marincounty]

Some people just don't want to know what's in their food. Reminds of when the govt wouldn't allow a U.S. company to test beef for mad cow. We wouldn't want to alarm people. Your food is bio-engineered, sssshhhh, don't tell anyone.
The notion that labeling would cost too much is laughable, especially in light of the millions the industry spent to defeat proposals in California and Washington.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's not truth in labeling. Its fear-mongering through ignorance because the well has been poisoned. Companies are already labeling things as "GMO-Free" to take advantage of the rampant ignorance and make a quick buck.

Can you blame them when some people with more disposable cash then common sense are willing to pay more $$money$$ for "organically grown", "non-GMO" labeled fruits and vegetables.

 

[BoomerD]

Some people just don't want to know what's in their food. Reminds of when the govt wouldn't allow a U.S. company to test beef for mad cow. We wouldn't want to alarm people. Your food is bio-engineered, sssshhhh, don't tell anyone.
The notion that labeling would cost too much is laughable, especially in light of the millions the industry spent to defeat proposals in California and Washington.

Really...how fucking much can it cost for a package to have "May contain GMO ingredients" on the label? They already list ingredients, nutritional info, and a myriad of other stuff...ONE LINE shouldn't cost very much to set up...and the extra printing cost would be minuscule.

To me, it's more about "OMG! If we tell them it contains GMO products, they won't buy our synthetic food substance."

For the most part, GMO food is no different nutritionally than non-GMO food...but it's NOT the same thing as buying "organic." I DO believe consumers should have the right to know if the food products they're buying were made from genetically modified products...even if it means the products are better than those "from mother nature."
If GMO is so safe and healthy, (and again, I believe it is) why would the companies fight tooth & nail to keep consumers from knowing their food is made with it? You'd think it should be a positive thing for them. "Our Unnamed Food Substance is made with genetically superior, modified products. It's better for you than that "Wild Stuff."

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's a natural and logical thing for MOST folks to get a little suspicious and skeptical about why they aren't being told something they want to know about. And telling them they have nothing to worry about without telling them why in plain english just makes matters worse, which is exactly what those business folks who profit from GMO foods are doing.

The fact that GMO foods just so happens to coincidentally boost profits for its producers and would possibly hurt their bottom line if GMO labeling was required, makes keeping the people ignorant even more suspect, as the profit motive, as we all know, makes a lot of people behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise.

And arguing that it isn't necessary to label is just as pertinent to argue that it is necessary.

I don't see anything wrong with giving consumers the ability to choose for themselves what they want to or not want to eat and this is exactly what the GMO proponents want to prevent the consumer from having: the ability to CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

Why is that? If GMO foods are so safe, then what's the problem with labeling as such? Why not educate the consumer and make GMO labeling a desirable selling feature? Surely the huge and profitable agribusness industry can spend a few million here and there to educate us. They can do that with ease, but choose to fight vigorously to keep people ignorant and guessing. What kind of confidence does that instill in the consumer when they are told to just shut the hell up and eat whatever they, the GMO food producers want us to eat? Isn't it logical that doing that would just make the consumer even more suspicious?

edit - What seems to be occurring within the GMO community is their concerted effort to flood the market with GMO produced foods and ingredients to the point where it wouldn't be financially or practically possible to remove GMO "tainted" foods from the chain and make it all happen before anything can be done to reverse the trend.

Because the logic in that is that you make the implied assumption that GMO food is "different enough" that it requires labeling at all and thus further implies that it is "bad" because, gasp.."its different" and without a stupid label we'd all be screwed and morph into mutant ninja turtles or end up with deformed mutant babies, etc thus you must slap a stupid label on it to stop everyone from being "unaware of the risks" for the "Sake of the children".

In other words it is like demanding that we slap labels on vaccines that say "Doesn't give you autism" when there is no proof that any vaccines given to kids at a early age have anything to do with autism.

 

[BoomerD]

Because the logic in that is that you make the implied assumption that GMO food is "different enough" that it requires labeling at all and thus further implies that it is "bad" because, gasp.."its different" and without a stupid label we'd all be screwed and morph into mutant ninja turtles or end up with deformed mutant babies, etc thus you must slap a stupid label on it to stop everyone from being "unaware of the risks" for the "Sake of the children".

In other words it is like demanding that we slap labels on vaccines that say "Doesn't give you autism" when there is no proof that any vaccines given to kids at a early age have anything to do with autism.

Who do you think we're gonna believe? You, or Jenny McCarthy?