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.