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

[Texashiker]

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.

You make a good point, and I respect your opinion.

My rebuttal is,

How many people are going to have a moral objection to eating Angus? Probably not too many.

There are people out there who object to the cruelty of battery cage chickens are put through. Most people do not care about how chickens are treated. After all, there is a reason why chickens are called "bird brains." But some of us do care.

Should products that use eggs from free range chickens be labeled? That is a tough question. I would have to say no. but it would be a good marketing point.

 

[Tom]

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.

It's a misuse of government authority to require labeling that isn't based on any scientific authority but it really just a personal philosophy, basically a religion.

That is the thing I don't see your side responding to, what is the role of government in society ?

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Isn't the fact that it would impose significant costs in fact proven by the millions they spent to defeat the proposals?

Or do you think they spent it for shits and giggles?

 

[Moonbeam]

Isn't the fact that it would impose significant costs in fact proven by the millions they spent to defeat the proposals?

Or do you think they spent it for shits and giggles?

Answer your own question. Are they worried about the cost of printing or are they worried that some folk will elect not to buy GMO products if informed of their presence? I know this is a very very difficult question for you so think hard before you answer. I'm sure you will answer honestly. You did say, did you not, that fear of GMO's is irrational. Do you think a corporation would attempt to suppress any chance that folk might not want to eat their product if it caused them irrational fear by revealing the presence of something in that product that would cause such fear. Did the cigarette companies resist warning labels on the smokes because of the cost of the ink? What reward do you get from your contemptuous distortions of logic?

 

[ThinClient]

Isn't the fact that it would impose significant costs in fact proven by the millions they spent to defeat the proposals?

Or do you think they spent it for shits and giggles?

Schitzengiggle :awe:

 

[blankslate]

To the OP's point I think this example is why the citizen's united decision is dumb.


Monsanto and other food corporations outspent the supporters of a similar bill/proposition in CA by more than 5:1 and they won there too.

I would not be surprised if the opponents of the Washington D.C. proposal also outspent the supporters.

 

[xBiffx]

To the OP's point I think this example is why the citizen's united decision is dumb.


Monsanto and other food corporations outspent the supporters of a similar bill/proposition in CA by more than 5:1 and they won there too.

I would not be surprised if the opponents of the Washington D.C. proposal also outspent the supporters.

Your reasoning skills are about as good as your reading skills. Big surprise.

 

[trenchfoot]

It's a misuse of government authority to require labeling that isn't based on any scientific authority but it really just a personal philosophy, basically a religion.

That is the thing I don't see your side responding to, what is the role of government in society ?

Good point. I've been casually keeping track of scientific studies on both sides of the issue, but it occurred to me that the deciding factor in this conflict is who has more influence over our legislators rather than what our empirical evidence points us to.

The big agribusinesses have had things pretty much go all their way and looking at that from a practical point of view, it's pretty obvious it's because of how much influence and how well organized and funded they are, as compared with the lack of organization and funds the proponents for labeling can put up.

So in answer to your question, the role of our government that needs to be stressed as far as this particular issue is concerned is that it protect it's citizens by ensuring the quality and safety of our food supply and not only protect the profit makers and takers who produce our food, of which our legislators always seem to lean toward when they are stood up and made accountable.

The battle lines for this issue are drawn in Washington DC and not in the science community. In this regard, the question you posed is THE question that needs to be answered. Is our government beholden to the masses who may suffer over the long term or the select few who have the most influence over it?

The pattern has, for the most part, played itself out such that our politicians yield to the interests of big money, give lip service to the masses, scream bloody murder in hearings when something goes wrong with "the usual arrangement" to show their constituents they are "on the job" and attempt to be as lenient as possible to their rich benefactors but look as fierce and protective toward the general public at the same time.

I don't see how this issue with GMO labeling is being played out any differently.

Profit always seem to rise over the safety of the masses.

 

[Tom]

Good point. I've been casually keeping track of scientific studies on both sides of the issue, but it occurred to me that the deciding factor in this conflict is who has more influence over our legislators rather than what our empirical evidence points us to.

The big agribusinesses have had things pretty much go all their way and looking at that from a practical point of view, it's pretty obvious it's because of how much influence and how well organized and funded they are, as compared with the lack of organization and funds the proponents for labeling can put up.

So in answer to your question, the role of our government that needs to be stressed as far as this particular issue is concerned is that it protect it's citizens by ensuring the quality and safety of our food supply and not only protect the profit makers and takers who produce our food, of which our legislators always seem to lean toward when they are stood up and made accountable.

The battle lines for this issue are drawn in Washington DC and not in the science community. In this regard, the question you posed is THE question that needs to be answered. Is our government beholden to the masses who may suffer over the long term or the select few who have the most influence over it?

The pattern has, for the most part, played itself out such that our politicians yield to the interests of big money, give lip service to the masses, scream bloody murder in hearings when something goes wrong with "the usual arrangement" to show their constituents they are "on the job" and attempt to be as lenient as possible to their rich benefactors but look as fierce and protective toward the general public at the same time.

I don't see how this issue with GMO labeling is being played out any differently.

Profit always seem to rise over the safety of the masses.

There's one big problem with your response. You completely dismiss the role science plays.

I agree with you that large corporations and the wealthy have too much say in what government does and doesn't do.

But that doesn't mean they're always wrong. The government has no business requiring a label that doesn't mean anything. And that's decided by science, not an anti-corporation philosophy.

 

[DrPizza]

You make a good point, and I respect your opinion.

My rebuttal is,

How many people are going to have a moral objection to eating Angus? Probably not too many.

There are people out there who object to the cruelty of battery cage chickens are put through. Most people do not care about how chickens are treated. After all, there is a reason why chickens are called "bird brains." But some of us do care.

Should products that use eggs from free range chickens be labeled? That is a tough question. I would have to say no. but it would be a good marketing point.

I want to know if my vegetables are watered naturally - rain, or if they're watered by depleting the ground table, which is a growing issue and important for moral reasons. I want to know if my vegetables are watered by water held back in natural rivers by dams. It's been proven that dams disrupt the ecosystem, and are responsible for things like red tide, as well as the loss of wetlands. It's, you know, a moral reason. I want my food labeled with which trucking company transported it. Some trucking companies are union shops, and others aren't. Didn't the Teamsters allegedly kill Jimmy Hoffa? It's a moral reason. I want to know if my produce was picked using mechanical processes or if it was picked using migrant workers. So many of the migrant workers are mistreated illegal immigrants who contribute to our healthcare costs. It's... a moral reason.

I want to know the brand and chemicals in every pesticide used on that crop - health reasons as well as moral reasons. I don't want pesticides used that have been shown to have a negative effect in wildlife in the area.

You have *yet* to demonstrate why wanting to know if they are GMO foods is a moral reason.

And, your point about labeling free range chicken demonstrates how you're looking at this completely backwards. "Free range" is a selling point. What you're suggesting is forcing poultry producers to label their poultry as "non-free-range," as if that means the chickens were treated worse or somehow the meat doesn't taste as well (it's been demonstrated that there's no real difference in how the chickens are treated).

 

[Texashiker]

You have *yet* to demonstrate why wanting to know if they are GMO foods is a moral reason.

You know good and well there is an anti-gmo movement out there.

So how do you want me to demonstrate something you already know?

We are not talking about migrate workers picking strawberries, we are talking about science splicing genes, and then trying to hide that information from the public.

Lets be honest here, monsanto has sued everyone from states, to individual farmers. They do not have a reputation of being friendly towards the public, nor or they known for their transparency.

When the people of Washington had the chance to force GMO out of the shadows, they changed their minds and buried their head in the sand.

 

[Tom]

You know good and well there is an anti-gmo movement out there.

So how do you want me to demonstrate something you already know?

We are not talking about migrate workers picking strawberries, we are talking about science splicing genes, and then trying to hide that information from the public.

Lets be honest here, monsanto has sued everyone from states, to individual farmers. They do not have a reputation of being friendly towards the public, nor or they known for their transparency.

When the people of Washington had the chance to force GMO out of the shadows, they changed their minds and buried their head in the sand.

Anyone who wants to talk about it can. And the press is free to discuss it. Want to change patent laws ? Fine.

But putting GMO lables on products would be using the government to advocate a political or moral or religious position. That's what's wrong with it.

 

[DrPizza]

You know good and well there is an anti-gmo movement out there.

So how do you want me to demonstrate something you already know?

We are not talking about migrate workers picking strawberries, we are talking about science splicing genes, and then trying to hide that information from the public.

Lets be honest here, monsanto has sued everyone from states, to individual farmers. They do not have a reputation of being friendly towards the public, nor or they known for their transparency.

When the people of Washington had the chance to force GMO out of the shadows, they changed their minds and buried their head in the sand.

It doesn't matter that there's a misguided movement against GMOs. You've completely dodged the question - on what moral ground do you object to GMO foods?

 

[OverVolt]

I would say long-term environment and Pandoras box type stuff. GMOs are monocultures not unlike how the Irish potato famine went down.

You lose all the biodiversity and the question becomes when not if some new bacterium/pest just completely obliterates the crop. Evolution is a bit like a treadmill. If you develop a monoculture that you grow generation after generation meanwhile the pests and pathogens continue to evolve its inevitable one will evolve to infiltrate the crop and hit the jackpot.

 

[OverVolt]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2...ks-everywhere-but-nothing-else-not-even-a-bee

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/agriculture_02

http://gmo-journal.com/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-crops/

All 3 in a row should make it clear.

 

[Tom]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2...ks-everywhere-but-nothing-else-not-even-a-bee

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/agriculture_02

http://gmo-journal.com/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-crops/

All 3 in a row should make it clear.

Yes, it does make it clear that it's a religion.

 

[her209]

When do we start allowing companies to genetically engineer humans?

 

[nehalem256]

When the people of Washington had the chance to force GMO out of the shadows, they changed their minds and buried their head in the sand.

In what world does a multi-millionaire advertising campaign constitute keeping GMO in the shadows.

After learning about GMO clearly Washington decided it would be a waste of money and effort to label all the foods that contain GMO(which is pretty much all of them).

Washington decided we should instead put our efforts to making sure that our food labels contain useful information:

 

[nehalem256]

When do we start allowing companies to genetically engineer humans?

Are you worried that Monsanto is going to sneak into your house at night and splice your genes?

 

[xBiffx]

I would say long-term environment and Pandoras box type stuff. GMOs are monocultures not unlike how the Irish potato famine went down.

You lose all the biodiversity and the question becomes when not if some new bacterium/pest just completely obliterates the crop. Evolution is a bit like a treadmill. If you develop a monoculture that you grow generation after generation meanwhile the pests and pathogens continue to evolve its inevitable one will evolve to infiltrate the crop and hit the jackpot.

Jesus tapdancing Christ you eco kooks are completely unreal. What, exactly, makes you think that GMO crops are somehow going to cause an obliteration of crops. Exactly what pathogen or pest is going to specifically target only GMO crops? Do you even read the utter BS that you type?

Simple question, what about GMO crops and not wild types makes it susceptible to pests/pathogens?

 

[Texashiker]

on what moral ground do you object to GMO foods?

I never said I objected to gmo crops. You are jumping to conclusions.

Just because someone starts a thread about truth in labeling, you "assume" that person is opposed to gmo crops.

This thread is about the people of a state having the chance for their food to be labeled, and they voted to stay ignorant. Ignorance should never be an option.

If the motion came up in Mississippi to label migrant picked strawberries, sure label them. Because the people should be informed.

Democracy, a form of government in which the many can take away the rights of the few.

We have a basic human right to know what we are eating. The majority in Washington have decided the minority does not need to know.