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.