Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[Segnosaur]

I am asking why Skeptics seem to have taken an odd stand on an industrial farm product...

This has already been explained to you...

Skeptics recognize 2 things:

- That GMOs are well tested and safe to consume. Thus, any attempt to label foods does not make our food supplies safer or better in any way

- Requiring GMO labeling will increase costs. You don't seem to think so, but that's because you're wrong wrong wrong. (You are basing your assumptions in this on consumer prices, ignoring the fact that those prices are 1: Heavily subsidized by the EU, so you don't even know the "real cost", 2: the "cheap food" often doesn't even have a GMO version (and when you do deal with food that has GMO components, the U.S. often has them cheaper),

Combining the increased cost with the uselessness of labeling should make any skeptic agree that labeling is a bad idea.

...that is apparently so unpopular that the only way to sell it is to hide it among desirable things.

There are a lot of things that are "undesirable"...

For example, organic food is often fertilized with manure, and urine can be used as a pesticide. Yet we don't require organic food to mention those particular facts.

If your claim is "label everything and let the consumer decide", your food labels are going to consist of one big long list of horror stories.

So by all means, if you want GMO foods labeled, put them on an equal footing with all other foods (including Organic), and force them to to indicate when they've been covered with dung and urine, or sprayed with certain chemicals.

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?"

Sadly "we" (meaning skeptics, not whatever you seem to be) do know better. Critical thinking and scientific education are unfortunately weaker than they should be, and its certainly possible for foolish ideas (anti-vax, alternative medicine, and anti-GMOs) to take hold.

 

[cosmicaug]

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.

The problem is with the "should". A free market worshiper would suggest that there should be no "should", that is that there should be no labeling requirements whatsoever, because, if consumers want labels (or some assurances of safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals or whatever), the market will always simply provide. In this particular instance, free market worshipers are correct. The market has provided. You can buy food that is labeled as not containing GMOs (anything that is labeled USDA Organic, plus other labels including the non-GMO Project certification and maybe even the Demeter label).

As it happens, I don't agree with free market worshipers on many things. I think having labeling requirements is a good thing. I think it should be required that ingredients be listed. However, in general, things that do not have a significant compositional impact should not be fall within the scope of government labeling regulation. Maize is maize. Soybean is soybean. Canola is canola. Papaya is papaya. Summer squash is summer squash. Apples are apples.

 

[cosmicaug]

OK, what other unpopular consumer products should we trick people into buying?

So according to you, when we are not putting labels on agricultural produce warning of the use of manure we are tricking them into buying said produce? Clarify your position.

 

[yog_sothoth]

This has already been explained to you...

Skeptics recognize 2 things:

- That GMOs are well tested and safe to consume. Thus, any attempt to label foods does not make our food supplies safer or better in any way

- Requiring GMO labeling will increase costs. You don't seem to think so, but that's because you're wrong wrong wrong. (You are basing your assumptions in this on consumer prices, ignoring the fact that those prices are 1: Heavily subsidized by the EU, so you don't even know the "real cost", 2: the "cheap food" often doesn't even have a GMO version (and when you do deal with food that has GMO components, the U.S. often has them cheaper),

Combining the increased cost with the uselessness of labeling should make any skeptic agree that labeling is a bad idea.


There are a lot of things that are "undesirable"...

For example, organic food is often fertilized with manure, and urine can be used as a pesticide. Yet we don't require organic food to mention those particular facts.

If your claim is "label everything and let the consumer decide", your food labels are going to consist of one big long list of horror stories.

So by all means, if you want GMO foods labeled, put them on an equal footing with all other foods (including Organic), and force them to to indicate when they've been covered with dung and urine, or sprayed with certain chemicals.


Sadly "we" (meaning skeptics, not whatever you seem to be) do know better. Critical thinking and scientific education are unfortunately weaker than they should be, and its certainly possible for foolish ideas (anti-vax, alternative medicine, and anti-GMOs) to take hold.

Labeling GMOs has not improved food costs in any measurable way in Europe. The entire argument for them, reduced costs, has not played out. The experiment has been done. We have the data. Labeling cannot be said to increase costs. I knew as soon as we got more then two posts past the fact that labeling does not increase costs this would be trotted out. I wish this wasn't so predictable.

You claim to have better critical thinking skills, but you have fallen into a paternalistic tribal "us vs. them" attitude and you can't see it. I have no idea how this meme got into the skeptical realm, but it is a terrible stance.

Keep in mind I am not saying that GMOs are dangerous or bad or that they should be banned. I am saying that we are championing an apparently unpopular consumer product to the point of advocating that the public be kept in the dark about something that concerns them because "Sadly, we know better"

Would you have the same attitude about unpopular fabrics or fashion trends? Unpopular computer products? "We can't label this operating system or nobody would buy it, please let us mix it in with those computers and not tell anybody." Would you support that idea?

Saying "I don't think GMOs are dangerous" is fine, you can argue about that with people. Saying "Sure, consumers want this information, but then they would make choices I don't like, so we should hide it" is really bizarre in my opinion. If a company comes out with a product that people do not want, that is the company's problem not the people's problem.

And I will repeat, there are no measurable costs to the consumers in Europe, where GMOs have been labeled since 1997.

 

[yog_sothoth]

So according to you, when we are not putting labels on agricultural produce warning of the use of manure we are tricking them into buying said produce? Clarify your position.

If this becomes a large controversy an people want to see this on labels, then yes. GMO labeling is clearly an issue that people are sensitive to, so it should be labeled.

It is interesting that you understand that people would prefer not to buy GMO products but you feel that they should be tricked into buying them through hiding the products. You do understand that is what you are advocating based on your perceived superior critical thinking skills.?

 

[cosmicaug]

If this becomes a large controversy an people want to see this on labels, then yes. GMO labeling is clearly an issue that people are sensitive to, so it should be labeled.

It is interesting that you understand that people would prefer not to buy GMO products but you feel that they should be tricked into buying them through hiding the products. You do understand that is what you are advocating based on your perceived superior critical thinking skills.?

I am not entirely sure that public opinion is as you think it is. Not even in Europe.

What I do understand is that people would prefer not to buy a product labeled as having been fertilized with fecal matter. You know I'm right. The only difference is that this issue has no activist organizations behind it (or big money interests, for that matter).

And you keep ignoring that people have a choice. The label, for all practical purposes, already tells you.

 

[Dessi]

Here's a plausible conspiracy theory: Anti-GMO lobby colludes with farmers to sell more expensive "organic" foods. It's less about the buyer's ability to make informed choices about their purchases, and more of an anti-marketing technique to make competitors products look undesirable. It's today's version of the slogan, "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can".

 

[Segnosaur]

Labeling GMOs has not improved food costs in any measurable way in Europe.

Once again....

You have not proven that point in any way!!!!

You have come to that conclusion falsely, by:

- Ignoring the fact that Europe has higher agricultural subsidies, which hides the true cost of food to the consumer

And:

- Ignoring the fact that most of the "cheaper foods" that lead to lower costs in europe do not have GMO alternatives.

The fact that you keep repeating the same bunk is like dealing with a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "La la la I can't hear you!!!"

 

[Donn]

While we're at it, we should include labels that say "Contains Mutations." Just to be super accurate.

If the tide turns and the GMO phrase becomes a positive thing, you can bet labels will fall over each-other to appear.

In the meantime, yeah, let's include every protein, every genome down to the chemical structure, every LaTeX paper published by every scientist ever involved. Leave nothing out, the public must know.

 

[Segnosaur]

You claim to have better critical thinking skills, but you have fallen into a paternalistic tribal "us vs. them" attitude and you can't see it. I have no idea how this meme got into the skeptical realm, but it is a terrible stance.

You are not (in any way) applying skepticism.

Skepticism involves following the evidence and backing claims up with reputable sources.

The problems with your particular "sources" (i.e. comparing food costs when once country provides higher subsidies than another) have been pointed out to you again and again. Yet you willfully ignore that fact.

That's not skepticism.

Would you have the same attitude about unpopular fabrics or fashion trends? Unpopular computer products? "We can't label this operating system or nobody would buy it"

Irrelevant comparisons....

Knowing the type of fabric an item of clothing is made from is important since it affects how you wash or handle it (which can affect your decision to purchase it). Knowing what operating system a computer has is important because it affects what types of software you can run on it.

Knowing something has GMO has absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

And I will repeat, there are no measurable costs to the consumers in Europe, where GMOs have been labeled since 1997.

Facts not in evidence.

Please, educate yourself on the concept of evidence. It would certainly help things along.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here's a plausible conspiracy theory: GMO labeling lobby colludes with farmers to sell more expensive "organic" foods.

Here is another plausible conspiracy theory. GMO anti-labeling lobby fights so hard because the industry knows that once labeled it can be tracked, and once tracked large scale population studies can be performed to actually determine if there are any long term unexpected emergent health problems associated with the GMOs currently in the food supply. Right now there is no evidence of this, only weak correlations without causations, and best if any attempt to obtain evidence is squashed.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here is another plausible conspiracy theory. GMO anti-labeling lobby fights so hard because the industry knows that once labeled it can be tracked, and once tracked large scale population studies can be performed to actually determine if there are any long term unexpected emergent health problems associated with the GMOs currently in the food supply. Right now there is no evidence of this, only weak correlations without causations, and best if any attempt to obtain evidence is squashed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I knew you'd get a kick out of that one scrut

 

[yog_sothoth]

Here's a plausible conspiracy theory: Anti-GMO lobby colludes with farmers to sell more expensive "organic" foods. It's less about the buyer's ability to make informed choices about their purchases, and more of an anti-marketing technique to make competitors products look undesirable. It's today's version of the slogan, "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can".

So, how does that play out considering that GMOs have been labeled in Europe since 1997? Was that an evil conspiracy by organic farmers?

We don't need to use hypothetical arguments. We know that GMO labeling is not a problem. It has worked in Europe for 18 years.

 

[theprestige]

... but if you really have questions about the relative quality of food in the US vs Europe, you haven't traveled much.

A point which was made to you repeatedly by other participants in a thread, which I link here in the hopes that it will provide us with some helpful context on your ideas about the disparity between American and European groceries:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282678

 

[portlandatheist]

#1 Reason to not label is the cost. Every peer reviewed study on the topic, without exception, shows that it would be a substantial cost to consumers in the states. The Consumer Union study estimates the cost based on the cost of printing the physical label itself and does not account for any other costs:
Studies:
http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf
http://www.cast-science.org/file.cf...ssue_Paper_54_web_optimized_29B2AB16AD687.pdf
http://www.washacad.org/initiatives/WSAS_i522_WHITEPAPER_100913.pdf

These cost estimates also don't account for costs to the government that we will also all pay for.

#2 Reason is the "Right to Know" movement does not treat it like a "right" at all. Do people concerned over mutagenic bred crops have the same rights as people concerned over transgenics or are their rights somehow different? After all, their concerns are much more reasonable in that mutagenisis is much more likely to have unintended consequences and they are not required to have any testing. What about hybrid crops? If the breeding method of a crop is a right, then treat it as such.
Lets label the following:
Mutagenic crops
Hybrid crops
DNA-Marker Assisted breeding
Polyploidy and Haploid
Protoplast fusion
Artificial Selection
(Any biologists here know of any I'm missing?)

 

[yog_sothoth]

A lot of people are fallign into tribal thinking in opposing GMO labeling.

Step 1: Company produces GMO product. Testing is done and no measurable harm is shown by using the GMO product. Questions persist about labeling GMOs.

Step 2: People make claims that GMO product is harmful and claim it should be banned.

Step 3: Skeptics see that the people claiming GMOs should be banned are making false claims and say as much. Skeptics become distrustful of people saying bad things about GMOs. Many people get into the "GMOs good, people who do not like GMOs bad" mindset.

Step 4: It becomes apparent that labeling GMOs amounts to a de facto ban on selling GMO products directly to consumers, although its use as animal feed is unaffected.

Step 5: As labeling GMOs appears to be a de facto ban and a victory for the anti-GMO crowd, Skeptics who are in the "Anti-GMO people are bad"camp react by trying to block this victory. This is not based on the merits of "should consumers be given a choice to buy things or not buy things that they are concerned about" but "we need to stick it to those bad people we don't like."

The opposition to GMO labeling is pure tribal thinking. People buy things or not buy things based on irrational reasons all of the time. Even if you think people are being irrational, they should have the choice.

We know that labeling can be done effectively.

After debating creationists, "psychics", UFO enthusiasts, and anti-climate change people for decade I know that this message is unlikely to penetrate right now. Many people are set in this mindset. "GMOs good, people who say bad things about GMOs bad." I get it. I have seen this before, but with "GMO" replaced with other nouns.

Remember this, you are advocating deceiving consumers by hiding information resulting in them buying things they would not buy if they knew what it was. That is what you want to do. You are advocating deception to push a consumer product. You are advocating mixing an undesirable product among desirable products to trick people. How is that a good thing for the people you want to trick?

Finally, why should anyone trust you on other issues if you publicly and proudly announce that you want to trick people into doing something they do not want to do? Seriously?

 

[yog_sothoth]

#1 Reason to not label is the cost. Every peer reviewed study on the topic, without exception, shows that it would be a substantial cost to consumers in the states. The Consumer Union study estimates the cost based on the cost of printing the physical label itself and does not account for any other costs:

Wow, if only a major industrialized group of nations had labeled GMOs so we could see what would happen. Oh, wait, Europe has been doing it since 1997 with no measurable increase in food costs to consumers. The experiment has been done. We don't need hypotheticals. GMO labeling works and does not measurably affect the cost of food.

 

[portlandatheist]

Wow, if only a major industrialized group of nations had labeled GMOs so we could see what would happen. Oh, wait, Europe has been doing it since 1997 with no measurable increase in food costs to consumers. The experiment has been done. We don't need hypotheticals. GMO labeling works and does not measurably affect the cost of food.

Please try and make a cursory attempt at actually reading one of the studies summary. This is not 1997 and this is not Europe. If you read just a little, you would understand why it would cost so much.

 

[marplots]

If this becomes a large controversy an people want to see this on labels, then yes. GMO labeling is clearly an issue that people are sensitive to, so it should be labeled.

It is interesting that you understand that people would prefer not to buy GMO products but you feel that they should be tricked into buying them through hiding the products. You do understand that is what you are advocating based on your perceived superior critical thinking skills.?

I think you have mentioned, more than once, that GMO labeling is something people want. But haven't they consistently lost at the ballot box?

Last year, pro labeling initiatives lost in Oregon and Colorado. They have previously failed in Washington and California.

Can you please stop saying that mandatory GMO labeling is popular? Please drop the line about "hiding" GMOs in the shopping cart as if people were being hoodwinked. They voted against it.

Cite: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-labels-laws-election-colorado-oregon-ngfood/

Isn't it really a fringe element of food phobics driving this issue?