• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptics and GMO Labeling

yog_sothoth said:
BTW, I also have to say that the argument that GMOs shouldn't be labeled because people would avoid them if it was labeled is an odd one. If people would avoid a product if they knew what it was that means that one certainly should label the product. You can claim that their reasons for avoiding GMOs are dumb, and you could be right, but we are talking personal preferences.

I personally think people who buy Apple products are making a bad choice, but I don't think Apple products should be unlabeled and mixed in with Samsung products to trick people into buying them.
Click to expand...
I think you got your similes backward.
 
yog_sothoth said:
BTW, I also have to say that the argument that GMOs shouldn't be labeled because people would avoid them if it was labeled is an odd one. If people would avoid a product if they knew what it was that means that one certainly should label the product. You can claim that their reasons for avoiding GMOs are dumb, and you could be right, but we are talking personal preferences.
Click to expand...

It's the same reason we don't teach both Creationism and Evolution in science glasses because some dinguses want to "Teach the Controversy." Demanding the GMO foods be labeled when there is no objective reason to do so is exactly the same.

You don't get to argue for transparency when you are factually wrong.
 
cosmicaug said:
And I am being serious. If there is some rational purpose to mandatory labeling, it should tell us something about what is in our food. The variety of some crop and the growing conditions of that crop are going to have a greater effect on composition than whether something is genetically engineered or not (at least for current modifications). As such, if it's all about knowing what I am eating, variety information is more important.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

When I've asked the anti-GMO crowd if we should label the nutrient levels in the soil, a lot of them say yes. Then I ask how that would be implemented, given that nutrient levels can vary widely in a field. I've yet to hear a good answer.
 
JoeBentley said:
It's the same reason we don't teach both Creationism and Evolution in science glasses because some dinguses want to "Teach the Controversy." Demanding the GMO foods be labeled when there is no objective reason to do so is exactly the same.

You don't get to argue for transparency when you are factually wrong.
Click to expand...

If people refuse to buy something on the market for reasons you don't like, that isn't a good reason to hide the information. Consumer choices are rarely rational in any case.

If someone comes out with a product that nobody wants, sneaking it into their shopping cart is not a great solution. Making a product that they do want is a better solution.
 
yog_sothoth said:
BTW, I also have to say that the argument that GMOs shouldn't be labeled because people would avoid them if it was labeled is an odd one. If people would avoid a product if they knew what it was...
Click to expand...

But that's the problem. Just saying "contains GMO" doesn't actually tell anyone anything about what it is or how it's different than the non GMO version. It can only lead to decisions based on emotion rather than information.
 
yog_sothoth said:
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

Sort by grocery index. Costs are certainly lower over most of Europe. Quality is more subjective. but if you really have questions about the relative quality of food in the US vs Europe, you haven't traveled much.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to compare EU to USA in this debate. There are too many other reasons for the differences in costs and quality between them to pretend that anything can be inferred about GMO labelling based on this difference.
 
marplots said:
I agree. I would also like to see foods which have been fertilized with pig poo properly announcing that fact. I have the right to select my food by species of feces.

How am I to make an informed choice about what I put in my holy mouth (on its travels to my revered stomach and honored gut), without knowing the facts? I just want the truth.
Click to expand...

yog_sothoth said:
Do you have a serious answer? Keep in mind that the EU requires labeling and it works just fine.
Click to expand...

Do you consider the GMO labeling a public safety issue?

If so, it would be an interesting exercise to compare the number of recalls done for a product because something was discovered about a GMO effect, versus the number of recalls done for a product because it was exposed to fecal matter, or other potential contaminants.

Then this labeling issue could be prioritized. If there are more GMO recalls than anything else, GMO labelling could be the top issue for labeing. If something else is, then shouldn't GMO labelling be taken off the table until those more important labeling priorities are resolved?
 
Last edited:
yog_sothoth said:
Quality is more subjective. but if you really have questions about the relative quality of food in the US vs Europe, you haven't traveled much.
Click to expand...

So basically "GMO need to be labeled because I'm a Euro-snob."

I've been to Europe multiple times. The food is no better or worse than in the states.
 
yog_sothoth said:
cosmicaug said:
Part of the problem is that we know what the purpose of mandatory labeling is. The purpose of mandatory labeling is scaremongering. It is nothing else. At least presently, it provides no useful information.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your assertions and conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I fail to see where I have posited a conspiracy.

As for the rest, I guess it depends on how you define scaremongering. If the intent is to scare without due cause, I would call it scaremongering. You may not.

It is clear that it is not about some right to know because the leaders of the movement themselves see it as a means to get rid of foods with GE ingredients from store shelves. Obviously, they think it will scare consumers. I maintain that this scaring would be without due cause. Thus I call it scaremongering.

As for providing useful information, like I have stated before, if it were about the right to know what is in your food, these labeling laws would actually try to tell you about what is in your food. They do not (Marplot's proposal that you scoffed at at least addresses a real problem that actually does kill people --at least if you generalize it to poo in general). Instead, they are information about a process used to make some food ingredients.

The most absurd manifestation of this are things such as requiring GMO labeling for corn syrup. A corn syrup would not even contain "novel" proteins or DNA which makes the GE corn derived syrup exactly the same as the non GE corn derived syrup in every possible way.
 
Last edited:
Pulvinar said:
That labelling isn't mandatory as far as I know, but maybe it should be. Certain Apple devices would then have "Warning: may contain Samsung parts".
Click to expand...
Why does Apple hide Samsung parts? It must be because they have something to hide. :confused:
 
The demand to be provided with useful information requires that the information be useful.
 
yog_sothoth said:
If people refuse to buy something on the market for reasons you don't like, that isn't a good reason to hide the information. Consumer choices are rarely rational in any case.

If someone comes out with a product that nobody wants, sneaking it into their shopping cart is not a great solution. Making a product that they do want is a better solution.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the fact that people already have a choice. If they want to choose to avoid foods with GE engineered ingredients, they can do so easily.
 
yog_sothoth said:
I use cost of living calculators. As for percentage of income, that is not a direct comparison. That factors in rent and whatnot. Also, you can cherry pick things like Coke that are more expensive, but that is deceptive.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp

My point is that the lower costs and higher quality being delivered to consumers in countries with GMO labeling show that it does no measurable harm.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, where to begin...

First of all, using costs as 'percentage of income' isn't quite as wrong as you think it is... An overall higher standard of living (or higher GDP) in one country will mean higher prices for everything; comparing items as a percentage of income eliminates that factor.

Secondly, I find it extremely ironic that you are complaining about my deceptive 'cherry picking', since your whole argument is based on deception. There is a reason for "cherry picking", and I've already touched on it... not all products are impacted by GMOs.

Lets take a look at your site... it points to the daily cost of food in the U.S. being higher than in Germany/France/etc. But you know what? part of that cost reduction is because things like Lettuce and Oranges are cheaper. And there is no GMO equivalent to those items. On the other hand, the items that I "cherry picked" (beef, coke, etc.) definitely do have a strong GMO input... through the use of genetically modified corn. Those items are relevant in doing price comparisons. Items that have never been subject to GMO modification are irrelevant.

And here's another point... your particular web site involves consumer reported prices (i.e. what you pay in a super market). But, European agriculture is heavily subsidized, to the tune of over $70 billion per year. Admittedly, American farmers are subsidized too, but the subsidies are much lower (around $20 billion). Even accounting for the larger population base in the European union, European agriculture still receives higher cash.

So while you may pay less in the supermarket, the real cost of the food is higher; they just pay though things like income tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/global/17farms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://usliberals.about.com/od/FoodFarmingIssues/a/What-Are-Farm-Subsidies.htm
 
Denver said:
Do you consider the GMO labeling a public safety issue?

If so, it would be an interesting exercise to compare the number of recalls done for a product because something was discovered about a GMO effect, versus the number of recalls done for a product because it was exposed to fecal matter, or other potential contaminants.

Then this labeling issue could be prioritized. If there are more GMO recalls than anything else, GMO labelling could be the top issue for labeing. If something else is, then shouldn't GMO labelling be taken off the table until those more important labeling priorities are resolved?
Click to expand...

I am asking why Skeptics seem to have taken an odd stand on an industrial farm product that is apparently so unpopular that the only way to sell it is to hide it among desirable things.

An assumption here is that if GMOs are labeled that nobody would buy them. OK, what other unpopular consumer products should we trick people into buying? Why should skeptics care if a consumer product is popular or unpopular? Why would we advocate sneaking unpopular consumer products into people's shopping carts? Because we "know better?"

You should label products with information that consumers want to know. If your reason for hiding product information is "because I don't think it matters and consumers are stupid" than I have to say that I find that a weak and paternalistic argument.
 
Let's say that tomorrow Dr Oz or Deprak Choprah or another Woo Slinger says that apples that are picked by a guy named Ted ruin your aura or cause autism and a bunch of idiots start believing that.

Should the supermarket have to label all its apples that were picked by a guy named Ted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom