Posted partially in response to this thread yesterday. Note that nearly everyone with any actual expertise in that thread is pro-GMO. Many of them are at least neutral on Monsanto as well, because some of the allegations made against it are either false or exaggerated.
Totally beside the point of whether GMOs are a net positive or negative, people have a right to know what they're purchasing and ingesting. Information is a form of currency, and to say that this information is inherently dangerous (as is the immediate implication from companies fighting mandatory labeling laws), while the product itself is not, is very suspect. Free information is among our most sacred rights. I think we would see less of an uproar if the companies (Monsanto in particular) that produce GMOs weren't so combative about letting people know what it is they're eating. Why hide what doesn't need to be hidden (especially at great cost)?
But even non GMO crops use pesticides, different types of fertilizers, and a varrying nature of chemicals. Those are things that aren't labeled either, that could theoretically be dangerous. So why are people starting with GMOs and raging so hard over them, when people have been putting chemicals on and into everything we eat for decades now? That's the part I don't get. Labeling, I understsand, but I don't understand why people think that GMOs are the worst things out there that should be labeled. A non GMO crop treated with chemicals or imported from a country where the pesticides aren't regulated is far scarier to me than eating GMO food. My only point is people freak out about labeling when it comes to GMOs, but no one says anything about labeling food in general for details like chemicals used and things that could be far more dangerous and detrimental to our lives. So if everyone is so concerned about rights to information, why only bring this up when it comes to GMOs and not food in general? It just seems overly hypocritical to me of the GMO bashing/circlejerk that has swept the internet. Why did everyone start caring what's in their food now that Monsanto is the enemy of the moment?
If the people wanted to start a ballot initiative to force foods to be labeled with which pesticides were used in their cultivation, then that should be their right. When the GMO initiative came up in CA, agribusiness spent tons of money to ensure that they weren't forced to label their products. That is antidemocratic. Again, I'm not arguing that GMOs are good or bad, just that we the people have a right to information, and should be granted what we demand without being slaves to corporate interests. The supreme court recently ruled that drug companies have the right (under the first amendment) to find out which doctors are writing which scripts. True story. "Free speech" for corporations goes so far as to let companies access certain supposedly private medical records. However, it never goes the other way. Information is too dangerous for the masses, but never could be abused by the corporate interests. I don't really give a shit about GMO, but I really care about free access to information. If the people demand it, they should be granted without interference from the moneyed.
Hmm. I think they have the right to decide not to buy a product, yes -- but the government historically only steps in and requires very specific labeling for products proven to be dangerous/controversial. Basically, this is saying to an impressionable public: "this product is on a health level with cigarettes." How? They're trying to protect profits that will almost assuredly go down due to consumer ignorance. Studies and surveys have shown that labeling simply will lead to lower sales of GMOs, because the public is brainwashed to be anti-science and anti-corporation. That seems reason enough to me to combat mandatory labeling. If this labeling business hadn't already been associated with negativity -- I would be all for it. Why not know exactly what's in your food, after all (although the average person has no idea what to do with that information anyway). However, there's no way to implement this policy now without it reflecting badly on all genetically modified foods. (Incidentally, I dislike Whole Foods as much as everyone else seems to dislike Monsanto, and they're the ones spearheading labeling to score points with their consumer base.)Totally beside the point of whether GMOs are a net positive or negative, people have a right to know what they're purchasing and ingesting.
Information is a form of currency, and to say that this information is inherently dangerous (as is the immediate implication from companies fighting mandatory labeling laws), while the product itself is not, is very suspect.
So your (and geneusutwerk's) argument is that people are too stupid to make their own choices? Let's apply this same logic to vaccines. Vaccines are the among the best public health advancements in the history of man, right up there with sanitation and antibiotics. However, there are many misguided souls that are totally against vaccines for this or that reason, most of which are ridiculous. By your argument, kids should just be given shots of vaccines without parents having any information as to what is contained in the solution, because to know the contents might cause fear mongering. Parent: But I want to know what medicine my kid is getting. Doctor: You can't know; it's dangerous to know. Parent: So this product is dangerous? Doctor: No, the product is safe and is great for mankind. Parent: So why can't I know what it is? Doctor: Frankly, you're too stupid, and you'll draw incorrect conclusions. Or even if you're "one of the good ones" your friends and family are also too stupid. Only I'm smart enough to know that vaccines are good for people. Parent: Oh wow, thanks for clearing that up! Sign my son up right away.
Your argument is that the doctor should be mandated to have a sign outside of his window saying "I give vaccinations." while millions in marketing dollars are doing all they can to vilify vaccinations and those the support them. It's a scarlet letter meant to create a new market, one that is certainly in the best interests of those putting the $ behind the campaign (I'd wager). edit: On both sides of the argument the money is coming, not surprisingly, from those companies that will be directly impacted. If they are labeled it should just say gmo in small print in a universally specified place. If you're too lazy to look or need a skull and crossbones, tough.
Don't reply with a straw man or don't reply at all. -- Unfortunately, that's not how the dialogue went for vaccines or is going for GMOs. It starts immediately at, "oh, this is dangerous!" and then the next several lines are spent fruitlessly trying to counter that view with science. I do believe that most people are pretty stupid and pretty easily led, but that's not to say they shouldn't be given the information they need to change -- but it shouldn't be mandatory and politically-motivated and a major detractor from profits. Incidentally, are you actually for the labeling of every genetically modified food? Because that's, you know, most of them.
Don't say "strawman" because it's an internet buzzword. -- You said implicitly in your initial reply and explicitly in your most recent that people are too stupid to make choices. All I did was use an analogy with another hot issue that there is a lot of misinformation about. I don't really care one way or the other. I just think that when people want information, they should be able to get it, especially in the case where it would be so easy. It's not as if it very hard to disentangle this info. I do realize that most of foods are modified. This is actually a great argument for labeling, because people would find out that they've been eating them all along and that there's little to fear.Incidentally, are you actually for the labeling of every genetically modified food? Because that's, you know, most of them.
In the long run, ideally. Which I'm for. But in the short run, the very companies that have made the GMO industry possible will get hit hard financially. There's a reason the Senate nixed the labeling overwhelmingly the other day.You said implicitly in your initial reply and explicitly in your most recent that people are too stupid to make choices. All I did was use an analogy with another hot issue that there is a lot of misinformation about.
My point was that you failed to address any other part of my post.This is actually a great argument for labeling, because people would find out that they've been eating them all along and that there's little to fear.
This is actually a great argument for labeling, because people would find out that they've been eating them all along and that there's little to fear.
This is a valid point.
Oh come on lets not make me say something I didn't say. I gave a plausible way to label the product, all I said is that if you slap a giant red label saying "WARNING CONTAINS GMOs" that it will unnecessarily scare people off. Similarly, you think that vaccines are good right? Vaccines can also cause a lot of side-effects. Do you think a doctor should be required, before administering a shot, to announce every potential side-effect without any context on how probable it is? I'm not saying that informed consumers are bad, just that you need to inform without simply scaring them away. Edit: Or what about if the vaccine-autism crazies pass a law saying that a doctor must start by saying "Some people believe that there is a connection between vaccine and autism".
If someone asks what the potential risks are, I would bet that most doctors would gladly offer them up without a requirement to do so. It's their responsibility.Do you think a doctor should be required, before administering a shot, to announce every potential side-effect without any context on how probable it is?
Yes I think we're in general agreement; I didn't mean to put words I you mouth earlier, and I may have misread your original comment. I don't think that it's a good analogy between labeling GMO and giving warnings about the autism connection. Perhaps simply labelling that a food contains GMO is similar to labeling a vaccine as containing thimerosal. Thimerosal is harmless, but people have a right to know. They can find out whether it's a toxic substance.
I agree and disagree. It could just lead to more fear mongering. If something is labeled as "Contains GMO" to the average consumer it will mean, well there must be something wrong with it if they are labelling it so I should avoid it. You don't label something just to label it. Though I guess they could potentially just put it where the nutritional information would be/ingredients.
In spirit, I agree with this. I think that the way that intellectual property laws currently operate is a big part of the problem. Also, though I think that people should be able to access information about what they're eating or consuming, I wonder if most people would take the time to really understand the information if it were made available. Sure, others could give them the gist of it, but getting the gist of something is by definition being familiar with something only to a point.
My personal fear of GMO is summed up by the 'Monsanto' argument. I think GMO could overcome many of the world's agricultural problems (in terms of food supply). I don't believe there will be any greater health impacts than with non-GM food and could be beneficial for the wider environment. But unless it becomes impossible to 'own' DNA sequences, GMO for me represent a dangerous and worrying prospect, where amoral corporations will profit from human suffering.
I think the genetic ownership issue is what really got people misguidedly started on GMOs. Remember that as morally reprehensible as most people find it, the process is legal for the moment, and also shouldn't reflect on the scientific viability of GMOs. This already happens in the pharmaceutical industry every day, sadly.But unless it becomes impossible to 'own' DNA sequences, GMO for me represent a dangerous and worrying prospect, where amoral corporations will profit from human suffering.
I can't say that I support GMO, or that I don't support GMO. As the post mentions, not all GMO are created equal. Round-up Ready crops are not the same as drought-tolerant crops so there's little use grouping them together for debate. GMO can increase crop yield, but it can also increase the suceptibility to disease by decreasing variance. It would be easy to label GMO food products as such. I would personally like to know, because there are times that I would actually investigate the type of GMO that was employed. The problem with labeling people as 'GMO truthers', is that you ignore the possibility that someone has uncovered a genuine case of harmful GMO, which is very possible (as the author concedes).
I'm with you on this. I would enthusiastically buy GMO products that satisfied my wants and need better than non-GMO crops. Show me better nutrition, quality or shelf life and my money will follow. I would buy GMO crops that were engineered in such a way to minimize farming's impact on the environment if they were the same price as other options. One thing no one has mentioned is that the United States is the Saudia Arabia of food. I have no desire to buy crops modified to take an extra big soaking of pesticides and there is no rational reason for me to want to buy these products. Organic products, at least in my neck of the woods, are competitive on price and sometimes on quality (sometimes better sometimes worse). I wouldn't want to see a GMO sticker that didn't tell me what kind of modification I was getting but I would be pretty happy to see a sticker with a QR code that could take me to an authoritative analysis of the benefits and costs of the product I was buying. Before I die I hope to eat a strawberry cantaloupe, I think it might be the most divine creation. I know this will only be possible with science, we are infants now but someday we might become strawberry cantaloupe gods.
I agree in large part. However, Let's let biologists do that, not stay-at-home moms with Facebook.The problem with labeling people as 'GMO truthers', is that you ignore the possibility that someone has uncovered a genuine case of harmful GMO, which is very possible (as the author concedes).
Are you a biologist? ;) There's a number of people in between (including us), that can have reasonable discussions on the issues. Farmers, for instance. In fact, some of the aspects are out of the realm of most biologists. Leaving it to the experts is difficult when the issue is so wide-ranging and complex. Especially when there are multiple competing interests.
Also, this proves that this dude really isn't educated at all about biology. The extinction rate is astronomical right now. For many reasons, GMO definitely being one, we are killing species with reckless abandon.Fear of unforeseen consequences. One common claim is that crop blights would do more damage resulting from lack of genetic diversity (the claim is often made that GMO crops will all be the same so they might all get killed off at once if the right disease hits). This one is particularly misguided in my mind because GMO is creating genetic diversity faster than we've ever had it before...
GMOs have been linked detrimentally to a handful of species. I view this as preventable, but I'm no expert. I hope it is, but if it comes to weighing human starvation against bees (which it hasn't yet, certainly, but someday might) I'm not picking bees, sad as that makes the environmentalist in me. In any case, logging and deforestation kill thousands of species a year. This reminds me of Mitt Romney's well-popularized statement that he was going to cut funding to NPR to fix the deficit.
The entire agricultural sector is reliant on bees and other pollinators. It is not 'save bees vs prevent human starvation'. It is 'save bees to prevent human starvation'. However, one of the biggest potential benefits of GMO will be to reduce pesticides which will help protect bees.
The point of Roundup ready crops is to eliminate all other plants. That results in the loss of biodiversity. It's not just the loss of competing plants, but the fauna (and fungi and microbes) that depend upon them. Even your classic corn field had a much higher biodiversity. I'll dig up an article.
I'm open to any and all articles, as usual. But the decreasing biodiversity of a cornfield has very little to do with the extremely high extinction rates, I suspect. We've already ruined the land that we farm on -- I live about three minutes from the only remaining real prairie grass stand in all of Oklahoma -- and whatever ecology that remains is a self-created one at this point. This is mostly conjecture, but I don't feel that the previously converted ag land we're talking about is worth saving at this point. If we could walk back the clock and preserve the great plains, that would be great, but I'm not sure what we'd eat. Same argument seems to hold today.
That's not what I'm suggesting. Biodiversity of the expanse of cornfields in the US could have significance for non-farmland, which could mean the spread of certain parasites, diseases, or a change in the susceptibility of them. I'm not much persuaded by saying that it's already ruined, because things can always be improved or made worse. The point is, we just don't know what the effects are and will be. They might be worth the increased yield, but that remains to be seen as we don't yet know the costs. GMO can be powerful, and I don't have a strong opinion on all aspects of it. But, because of the unknowns, IMO it should be carefully studied, and regulated. People are right to be skeptical. We used to use X-rays in shoe stores. Mistakes in the application of new technologies have been made. I am sure we are making some now.But the decreasing biodiversity of a cornfield has very little to do with the extremely high extinction rates, I suspect.
Okay, i can see where you're coming from. It bothers me when people hate on modified corn and wheat and so on, because the technology they're talking about has saved tons of lives in third world countries. But I do get your point about caution. At the same time, apparently the vast majority of scientists have said there are no health risks. So I wonder if it really is a case of fearing change for its own sake, or if the experts are missing something.
You titled your post in a way that implies this user knows wtf he's talking about. He does not, based on this silly, factually incorrect argument. As I said, there are many reasons biodiversity is decreasing. Dumping untold volumes of Roundup onto farmland has obliterated many insects in the heartland. It's not just a drop in the bucket as your inept Mitt Romney analogy wants so badly to imply. For one who seems to care about arguing from a science perspective, you're not doing a very good job.
I expect GM crops would likely encourage monoculture in some instances, which impacts ecological health, reduces genetic diversity and increase the risk of total crop failure. However, GM could help prevent against crop failure, reduce fertiliser/pesticide requirement and improve ecological health in monoculture systems. Depends on the delivery.