• 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:
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."
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the fact that consumers already have a choice and that consumers already have labels (just not government mandated labels).
 
yog_sothoth said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see you do this. You've done no more than talk about general impressions.
 
Food labels are for nutritional facts and allergy information. GMOs change neither.

If you want to use a label for marketing to to foodies, go ahead. But then you get to deal with the inverse. Milk labeled as being from cows not treated with BGH have to add another label saying that there are no studies showing harm to humans from BGH.

So I suggest the opposite here too. If you want to label your food "No GMOs!" then you must also label your food with "GMOs have shown no harm to humans."

Mandating a GMO label would help nothing and cause baseless fears.
 
cosmicaug said:
And how was that poll worded?
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/s...atedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

They never say how the question was asked, and even say:

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of public opinion may introduce other sources of error into the poll. Variation in the wording and order of questions, for example, may lead to somewhat different results.
Click to expand...

I expect better from the NYT.
 
I think it's time to ask - why do you support GMO labeling? If it really is an abstract "right to know," then why is knowing this fact more important than any other minutia?

Why, for instance, does GMO labeling stand out from all the other possible things we could cram on a package:

1) Grown in the USA (or not) as a percentage of ingredients
2) Average wage earned by the line workers/migrants for this food
3) Types of fertilizer used in ingredient production (animal waste, other)
4) Whether or not (and type) of pesticide used in the field
5) Percentage of product produced with non-union labor
6) Whether the product was cooked in any way during processing
7) Shipping method used - boat, truck, train...
8) The amount and type of radiation contained in the product (whether natural or derived)
9) The charities the producer contributes to
10) Any political donations made by anyone in the production chain

I'm sure there are plenty of other things someone, somewhere, would like to know. And, as much as my pig feces fertilizer label was discounted, I'm guessing your average Muslim or Jew might be interested in that information.

The reason not to label GMOs is simple: It creates an artificial class without merit. It's racism for food.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
I think it's time to ask - why do you support GMO labeling? If it really is an abstract "right to know," then why is knowing this fact more important than any other minutia?

Why, for instance, does GMO labeling stand out from all the other possible things we could cram on a package:

1) Grown in the USA (or not) as a percentage of ingredients
2) Average wage earned by the line workers/migrants for this food
3) Types of fertilizer used in ingredient production (animal waste, other)
4) Whether or not (and type) of pesticide used in the field
5) Percentage of product produced with non-union labor
6) Whether the product was cooked in any way during processing
7) Shipping method used - boat, truck, train...
8) The amount and type of radiation contained in the product (whether natural or derived)
9) The charities the producer contributes to
10) Any political donations made by anyone in the production chain

I'm sure there are plenty of other things someone, somewhere, would like to know. And, as much as my pig feces fertilizer label was discounted, I'm guessing your average Muslim or Jew might be interested in that information.

The reason not to label GMOs is simple: It creates an artificial class without merit. It's racism for food.
Click to expand...

"Racism for food"? Really? I think you need to sit and evaluate how you came to a point where typing that and hitting "submit reply" made sense to you.

As for how to do it, follow the European model. They have run a successful program for 18 years. No need to reinvent the wheel. If you don't like the European model we could at least try to catch up with China.
 
Saying, "No GMO here, wink wink!" is a form of fraud.

This is driven not by a precautionary principle, but by the same kind of charlatanism behind normal snake oil claims, with the same attendant talking heads selling books and promoting YouTube videos with links to books.

For that matter, there could even be an undiscovered danger, and we may still safely claim it is driven by the snake oil crowd -- that is the motivation; any problems would be purely coincidental to their motivations, i.e. pure luck.
 
cosmicaug said:
yog_sothoth said:
Support for GMO labeling is strong, but anti-labeling is well funded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
And how was that poll worded?
Click to expand...

To make my point better, if people are asked if there should be more information on on a food label, apparently, in 2014, only 4% both think that more information should be on a label and that it should include biotech information (see page 28 at http://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20Full%20Report_IFIC%202014%20Food%20Tech%20Survey.pdf).

I'm not going to say that that's how that should be worded to address the question of whether people support labeling. Doing surveys correctly is complicated. I am only using this to emphasize that how you word surveys matters a lot.
 
Denver said:
Do you consider the GMO labeling a public safety issue?
Click to expand...

yog_sothoth said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you don't consider it a health issue, then it seems more like an advertising issue. So I would agree with the earlier sentiment of just letting GMO free products label themselves with "GMO Free" if they want. Without a health issue, it sounds more like puffery, or "Ours is better than yours".
 
yog_sothoth said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you a toll?

Come on, fess up.

This has been explained to you how many times?

Since you seem to lack basic reading comprehension, I suggest you read this part slowly:

The only reason foot costs in Europe appear cheaper is because They are heavily subsidized and include a significant number of foods that don't have GMO versions anyways.

Got it? How many more times does that have to be explained to you before it sinks in?

The only way that a rational person would still cling to the "no cost" claim is if they're not rational, or they're a troll.
 
yog_sothoth said:
"Racism for food"? Really? I think you need to sit and evaluate how you came to a point where typing that and hitting "submit reply" made sense to you.
Click to expand...

The fog of manufactured outrage may have concealed the question I was asking:

I think it's time to ask - why do you support GMO labeling? If it really is an abstract "right to know," then why is knowing this fact more important than any other minutia?
 
cosmicaug said:
To make my point better, if people are asked if there should be more information on on a food label, apparently, in 2014, only 4% both think that more information should be on a label and that it should include biotech information (see page 28 at http://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20Full%20Report_IFIC%202014%20Food%20Tech%20Survey.pdf).

I'm not going to say that that's how that should be worded to address the question of whether people support labeling. Doing surveys correctly is complicated. I am only using this to emphasize that how you word surveys matters a lot.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thank you. Personally, I'd throw my hat in with the "processing info" crowd. Cheese, that shredded kind of cheese that's all powdery and never goes bad, and "cheese flavored dairy product" in a can all have milk and various preservatives in their ingredients list, but surely there's more differences that ought to make their way onto the label.
 
:D
Denver said:
If you don't consider it a health issue, then it seems more like an advertising issue. So I would agree with the earlier sentiment of just letting GMO free products label themselves with "GMO Free" if they want. Without a health issue, it sounds more like puffery, or "Ours is better than yours".
Click to expand...

non-gmo-rock-salt_1.jpg


:D
 
Denver said:
If you don't consider it a health issue, then it seems more like an advertising issue. So I would agree with the earlier sentiment of just letting GMO free products label themselves with "GMO Free" if they want. Without a health issue, it sounds more like puffery, or "Ours is better than yours".
Click to expand...

So, you do advocate tricking people into buying something they don't want by hiding it among things they do want without telling them? Yes?

So, once you admit that you advocate deceiving people when you see fit without any qualms, how do I know if you are telling the truth now or in the future?
 
yog_sothoth said:
So, you do advocate tricking people into buying something they don't want by hiding it among things they do want without telling them? Yes?
Click to expand...

If you don't want GMO food, you can look for food with a "No GMO" label. Just like you can look for lactose free milk or gluten free bread. It's not hidden. You're just choosing to not look.

Foods not expected to have gluten or lactose but do anyway have a label saying so, because people can be harmed by them. Nut allergies are bad enough that a package of peanuts that has as its entire contents label "Ingredients: Peanuts" still needs a Warning: Contains Peanuts.

But GMOs have not shown any negative effects of any kind, and so requiring the label is like requiring a label for HFCS or any sort of non-organic ingredient. If you want a special label for "No HFCS" or "100% Organic" go ahead. You can even add a "No GMO" label." Mandating them is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
The fog of manufactured outrage may have concealed the question I was asking:

I think it's time to ask - why do you support GMO labeling? If it really is an abstract "right to know," then why is knowing this fact more important than any other minutia?
Click to expand...

I support GMO labeling because it is a public concern and would affect what people buy. It is the law in most industrialized countries and has been successfully implemented for quite a while. This isn't some fringe idea, the US is the outlier for NOT having it.

Do you still feel that GMO labeling is "racism for food"?
 
yog_sothoth said:
So, you do advocate tricking people into buying something they don't want by hiding it among things they do want without telling them? Yes?

So, once you admit that you advocate deceiving people when you see fit without any qualms, how do I know if you are telling the truth now or in the future?
Click to expand...

But I didn't say they should hide it if it is GMO free. I said they should proudly display it, if they feel it is something people should know about, and people want to know.

So you seem to be saying that people want to know this, and the point of contention is who should bear the burden of telling them, either way. I think this statement is a fairer way to state the issue, rather than accusing me of trying to trick people. I think we'd have a more productive discussion without accusing me of trying to 'trick' people, or of 'deceiving' people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom