Skeptics and GMO Labeling

[Wayward son]

I have seen an odd trend of otherwise sensible skeptics strongly advocating that GMO foods should not be labeled. I find this really bizarre.

I don't know why you consider this to be bizarre. As skeptics we generally go with the position of the community of relevant experts. That is an easy one when it comes to GMO labeling.

All you have to do is look at the position of the AAAS, AMA, scientific American, or say a book written by a group of experts, and published by an academic press: here.

I guess what I find bizarre is a skeptic who doesn't care what the experts say on a matter, but instead favors the position of politicians who responded, in a non-scientific way, to massive general public stupidity and hysteria.

The rest of your posts generally say that GMO labeling in Europe didn't lead to any cost increases. Which is contradicted by the European Commission's studies into the subject.

Here in the US and Canada where GMOs are prevalent within the food system, labeling would create chaos...like the chaos that would have been created in Europe if they had forced a product where GMOs were prevalent to be labeled....like say, cheese. No GMO labeling there. That kind of shoots down the right to know argument.

Europe where you have the right to know about GMOs...except when we don't want you to. At least we are consistent over here.

I have yet to speak to a single person who favors GMO labeling who actually knows what that labeling would actually tell them. For every person I have talked to on this issue GMO labeling would actually further misinform them....which considering how completely misinformed they already are, that is impressive.

Not to mention the stupidity of labeling GMOs, but not say plants derived through radiation breeding, chemical mutagenesis etc.

Placing absurd, non-scientifically justified, regulatory requirements on GMO crops is detrimental - as has led to a situation where only the largest companies can bring GMO crops to market. Labeling them would just cause further harm, and has no health or scientific justification. We have to feed 9 or 10 billion in next 40 to 50 years, and preferably feed them well while reducing the environmental impact of food production at the same. You can't do that by rearranging the village to suit the village idiot as Europe has done on this issue.

 

[Segnosaur]

I do realize I am debating people...

Except you're not debating. You're repeating the same garbage over and over again, like a brain damaged parrot, regardless of how often your arguments have been debunked.

That's not "debating". That's trolling.

Let me paraphrase how things are going...

A skeptic: Here's why labeling GMOs will increase costs.
Brain damaged parrot: SQWACk! No cost increase. Look at Europe!
A skeptic: Here's real examples showing increased costs
Brain damaged parrot: SQWACk! No cost increase. Look at Europe!
A skeptic: Here's the reason why your reasoning of no cost increases is wrong.
Brain damaged parrot: SQWACk! No cost increase. Look at Europe!
A skeptic: Here's studies done by reputable universities showing the expected cost increases

The brain damaged parrot is not "debating" in any sense of the word.

At this point I suspect you are a troll. I'm honestly surprised you haven't broken out the "you're all shills for monsanto!" train of thought.

...who openly advocate deception, which makes the debate...

We only "advocate deception" in the same way that organic farmers advocate deception by not putting "this stuff was fertilized by dung" on their stuff.

...somewhat tricky as I really can't take what people say as honest.

We've been honest. You've been a brain damaged parrot.

Which facts have been challenged? Cost of living records show that Europe, which has had GMO labeling for 18 years, has overall lower food costs than the US.

You're "evidence" is a web site with consumer reported food prices... but Europe has much higher subsidy rates than the US. Of course food is going to appear cheaper when its paid for by the government.

Only an idiot would have that explained to them, then repeat the same bunk over and over again.

GMO labeling has resulted in no measurable increase in cost. That was never refuted.

Actually it has... just that a brain damaged parrot doesn't seem to be able to understand that.

GMO labeling is clearly a public concern....

In much the same way that Obama's birth certificate and background as a secret Muslim is a public concern.

You can claim that it is a manufactured concern or that people shouldn't be worried about it, but you can't deny that people have a concern. The concern is so strong that labeling GMOs is considered a de facto ban on GMOs and is fought tooth and nail by industry.

And its fought tooth and nail by skeptics who don't want see prices go up unnecessarily, because we see brain damaged parrots squacking "No price increases!" against real evidence as unconvincing.

It is clearly deceptive to take a product that people would prefer not to buy and mix it in with things they need to buy and not label them, to trick them into buying it.

And its clearly deceptive to take products that have been dumped on by cow dung, and put it on shelves without a label that says "this stuff has been exposed to cow dung".

When you start calling for organic food to have the "cow dung" label, then perhaps we might actually listen to you.

This really has nothing to do with safety, but with consumer preferences. I have no idea why people buy Skullcandy headphones when Grado makes less expensive superior headphones. I have no idea why people buy iphones when replacing the battery is such a pain. People will not always buy the things you think they should buy. If consumers don't want to buy a product, they shouldn't have it forced on them. That is a problem for the company making the products, not the people who do not want to buy the products.

If people want to guarantee that they're eating GMO foods, they can go buy organic. Or pay extra to have some sort of "GMO-free certification".

The rest of us should not have our prices increased because a brain damaged parrot knows nothing than how to squack out incorrect information.

 

[cosmicaug]

I do realize I am debating people who openly advocate deception, which makes the debate somewhat tricky as I really can't take what people say as honest.

That you keep asserting this doesn't make it so.

Which facts have been challenged? Cost of living records show that Europe, which has had GMO labeling for 18 years, has overall lower food costs than the US. GMO labeling has resulted in no measurable increase in cost. That was never refuted.

It was also never properly supported by evidence. That you keep pretending otherwise does not make it so.

It is clearly deceptive to take a product that people would prefer not to buy and mix it in with things they need to buy and not label them, to trick them into buying it.

It is clearly dishonest to pretend the information is not out there for such a person to make that choice. You know,... like on the labels,... the labels we already have.

This really has nothing to do with safety, but with consumer preferences. I have no idea why people buy Skullcandy headphones when Grado makes less expensive superior headphones. I have no idea why people buy iphones when replacing the battery is such a pain.

Jewish people (at least some of them) also have preferences and yet no one has mandated kosher labeling for them. I certainly do not see you advocating for such a requirement. Is there a grand conspiracy for hiding whether a rabbi has prayed over the food (or whatever) because there exists no mandatory kosher labeling?

BTW, my contention that much of the reason skeptics flock to the anti GMO labeling as a tribal emotional reaction was clearly shown to be accurate by Marplots calling GMO labeling "racism for food." He really thinks that. When we are looking at which side is reality-based, remember that.

I think his point was that you are creating an artificial class.

 

[Wayward son]

So, who here is against hiding GMOs among non GMO food without labels to trick people into eating it?

Why do you support the hiding the crops derived from radiation breeding, chemical mutagenesis, or any other (non-GMO) process? No labels, so they are tricking people into eating it. Why do you support that?

 

[portlandatheist]

Let me tackle the point which (may be behind the humour).

There are some people which says that something does not need to be labelled if there is no risk or impact. There are some which says stuff STILL need to be labelled if it is informative of content that some people would want to avoid *even if for belief reason*.

To give you an example : if pig fat was used without being labelled, you would agree that would make some religious people quite unhappy. Remember the uproar on some fast food chain using the same oil frying bath for beef/and fries ?

It is not *simply* about perceived threat but about "informed consent" on eating food.

Some people declare themselves the judge of what should be written on etiquettes and what should not be. I simply say : write the content like GMO too and let the price and belief sort the people out. Let the free market decide ! But you cannot let the free market decide if the market is not informed.

FYI: I would not balk at eating GMO. I do not care. A bit. But I refuse the fallacy of some that because they think that since it is safe other people wanting the information does not need it.

Again , who are you all to judge the quirk on what food people eat ?

Kosher, Vegetarian, Halal, Vegan, GMO Free and so on are all voluntary labels and not mandatory labels, why have a different standard for transgenics (or mutagenics, or hybrids, ) what is the compelling reason if it just consumer preference?

 

[ThunderChunky]

I think this boils down to tribalism. We see people making outlandish claims about GMOs, and we side with the people they are bashing. That is not a good reason for the skeptical community to support an industry position on a commercial product, in my opinion.

For me it boils down to having sensible and meaningful labels. A generic "GMO" label makes zero scientific sense and is not informative in any way. In fact, it is effectively misleading because it implies there is some meaning behind the label. People will erroneously think there is a valid scientific/nutritional reason that it is labeled. Knowing that a food contains some unspecified GMO ingredient doesn't tell you ********, it's pure fear mongering. Might as well warn parents about the "risks" of vaccines, there is clearly a lot of people that think that should be done. Or maybe put a label on anything with tomato, eggplant, or peppers that says "Nightshade." Would that be useful?

You'd have to label each variety of GMO individually to actually make the label convey information. But why stop at each variety of GMO, why not label each variety of non-GMO ingredients? Yes, let us know exactly which variety of apples are in that apple sauce. Also, why not label every single agricultural technique used to produce the food in question? Yep, tell us if your farm was till or no-till and whether or not you used immigrant labor. The people have a right to know--with mandatory labels!

Oh and Europeans in general are much more wooey about GMOs..the whole labeling thing certainly hasn't helped them inform themselves on the actual science of GMOs.

 

[cosmicaug]

So, who here is against hiding GMOs among non GMO food without labels to trick people into eating it?

Why do you support the hiding the crops derived from radiation breeding, chemical mutagenesis, or any other (non-GMO) process? No labels, so they are tricking people into eating it. Why do you support that?

I can answer this one. If he determines that there's "public concern" then it's hiding and tricking people. If he doesn't determine that there's "public concern" then it's not hiding and tricking people and it's OK.

 

[Wayward son]

Also, why not label every single agricultural technique used to produce the food in question? Yep, tell us if your farm was till or no-till and whether or not you used immigrant labor. The people have a right to know--with mandatory labels!

I would like to know where the diesel came from to fuel the tractor used on the farm where my food was grown. Nothing major...just country of origin, how, when and where it was processed etc. If it is not on the label then I am being deceived.

 

[portlandatheist]

I would like to know where the diesel came from to fuel the tractor used on the farm where my food was grown. Nothing major...just country of origin, how, when and where it was processed etc. If it is not on the label then I am being deceived.

Don't forget greenhouses. I'd like to know if my food was grown in a greenhouse or not

 

[marplots]

I do realize I am debating people who openly advocate deception, which makes the debate somewhat tricky as I really can't take what people say as honest.

Which facts have been challenged? Cost of living records show that Europe, which has had GMO labeling for 18 years, has overall lower food costs than the US. GMO labeling has resulted in no measurable increase in cost. That was never refuted.

GMO labeling is clearly a public concern. You can claim that it is a manufactured concern or that people shouldn't be worried about it, but you can't deny that people have a concern. The concern is so strong that labeling GMOs is considered a de facto ban on GMOs and is fought tooth and nail by industry.

It is clearly deceptive to take a product that people would prefer not to buy and mix it in with things they need to buy and not label them, to trick them into buying it.

This really has nothing to do with safety, but with consumer preferences. I have no idea why people buy Skullcandy headphones when Grado makes less expensive superior headphones. I have no idea why people buy iphones when replacing the battery is such a pain. People will not always buy the things you think they should buy. If consumers don't want to buy a product, they shouldn't have it forced on them. That is a problem for the company making the products, not the people who do not want to buy the products.

BTW, my contention that much of the reason skeptics flock to the anti GMO labeling as a tribal emotional reaction was clearly shown to be accurate by Marplots calling GMO labeling "racism for food." He really thinks that. When we are looking at which side is reality-based, remember that.

It is racism for food. The only way you can tell your ketchup has GMO corn syrup instead of non-GMO is through DNA testing. It is exactly like racism - making up a difference between choices that has no merit whatsoever, based on prejudice and unfounded bias.

You say "tribalism," I say "consensus."

I'll even go further. It's racism based on a false religion, the religion of "all-natural." That, in itself, is very dangerous. Why? Because nature is out to kill you. The only reason we enjoy the benefits of longer life and civilization is because we have effectively battled against nature. Because we've bent the bitch to our will.

This discussion is very much a parallel to the Creationist demand to "just teach the controversy." No. If GMOs are an issue for you, pay for GMO-free. Don't make the rest of us pay for irrational fears.

 

[Minoosh]

Cost of living records show that Europe, which has had GMO labeling for 18 years, has overall lower food costs than the US.

But wouldn't comparing EU food prices now vs. 1997 (adjusting for inflation, or by percentage of budget, etc.) be the more relevant metric re: the cost of labeling?

That's what I am seeing - people saying that your logic does not parse. Not even that you're wrong, just not clearly evaluating dodgy statistics.

ETA: I agree with you about quality, based on my perceptions; but they are solely my perceptions. I'd love to have a Pret a Manger nearby instead of 6 different brands of fast-food burgers 'n' fries.

ETA 2: Again speaking to legitimacy of labeling: What I've read about beef feedlots makes me feel guilty about eating corn-fed beef at all; the relevant ethical factor being that they are fed corn, not whether the corn is GM. I am more likely now to go with "grass-fed," even if the cows stand in one place all day eating alfalfa. "Grass-fed" is of course different from "free range."

 

[Segnosaur]

Don't forget greenhouses. I'd like to know if my food was grown in a greenhouse or not

And some greenhouses use artificial light.

As a consumer concerned about the environment, I would want to know if the produce grown in a greenhouse used artificial light from electricity generated from renewable resources.

 

[Wayward son]

I can answer this one. If he determines that there's "public concern" then it's hiding and tricking people. If he doesn't determine that there's "public concern" then it's not hiding and tricking people and it's OK.

I agree that is the metric he is using. It creates a system where shady businesses can not only make a lot of money through whipping up mob hysteria about competitors products (as they already do), but further insult can be added to injury (and further benefits to the shady businesses) when politicians legislate not based on reason, evidence, or science but instead based on that ill created "public concern."

In a rational society, legislation would be based on dealing with purveyors of (and profiteers from) base-less scaremongering campaigns, instead of further attacking the victims of the base-less scaremongering campaigns. And as a skeptic that is sure as hell where I am going to stand.

 

[Segnosaur]

But wouldn't comparing EU food prices now vs. 1997 (adjusting for inflation, or by percentage of budget, etc.) be the more relevant metric re: the cost of labeling?

That's what I am seeing - people saying that your logic does not parse. Not even that you're wrong, just not clearly evaluating dodgy statistics.

Its not just that his logic is wrong (well, it is, but that's only half the problem).

Its that his data is wrong too.

He's comparing the consumer prices in one market with heavy subsidization with prices in a market with considerably less subsidization. So, he's not even looking at the real costs of everything.

 

[Minoosh]

I got tired of adding ETAs.

I know people who think that "contains no fat" means the food is not fattening, even when the fat-free version has more calories than the regular one. I had an educated friend who said a product didn't have "sugar," when what she meant was no added table sugar. And when I first heard of calls to label (or otherwise provide) information on fast-food "nutrition," I was floored. I figured fast food was crap, people knew it was crap and didn't care.

But now I'm happy the information is available. Not usually on the wrapper, but as a handout, or on the Web. Most food manufacturers and outlets go to great lengths to "engineer" food that makes it very easy to overeat. Even without bothering with any fuss about GMOs. I think people here are arguing that singling out GMO for labeling grossly elevates its relevance when people are deciding whether to eat healthily, ethically, locally, sustainably, etc.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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?

You are still close, still not quite there yet though.

 

[Minoosh]

Its not just that his logic is wrong (well, it is, but that's only half the problem).

Its that his data is wrong too.

He's comparing the consumer prices in one market with heavy subsidization with prices in a market with considerably less subsidization. So, he's not even looking at the real costs of everything.

Oh, I get that. But if his comparisons were within the EU I am *assuming* it would be more legitimate because he/she would be comparing the same two marketplaces. That's assuming subsidies within the EU have been stable and I really have no idea.

There is some protectionism within the EU, favoring regional food producers. I don't know if that has affected subsidies.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oh, I get that. But if his comparisons were within the EU I am *assuming* it would be more legitimate because he/she would be comparing the same two marketplaces.

Well, technically he was comparing the EU (or at least markets within the EU) with the U.S., rather than one EU market with another.

That's assuming subsidies within the EU have been stable and I really have no idea.

Not only would subsidies have to remain stable, but factors like population growth, climate, and the economy would likewise have to remain stable.

But yeah, comparing the effects within a single market before and after GMO labeling, or between 2 markets with near-identical economic and geographic conditions would be the best comparison.

 

[portlandatheist]

There is another thing that is problematic with GMO labeling, and that is which products you decide to label and not label as GMOs and that is not a black/white easy to define situation. 90% of the cheese in the USA is made from GMO rennet and nobody is suggesting it be labelled as GMO because the rennet isn't a final ingredient in cheese. We are all on the same page on this including all the organic organizations. That makes sense. But what about sugar? Vegetable Oil? High fructose corn syrup? Do any of these products "contain" GMOs if they were made with GMO sugar beets, GMO canola, GMO corn? What about sweet potatoes, all of which contain T-DNA although this didn't happen intentionaly? ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112.abstract ) Do natural GMOs need to also be labelled? And it goes on and on and on. Some people consider mutagenic breeding a form of GMO. How exactly do we dertermine what "contains" GMOs and what doesn't? Is cheese a GMO? is veggie oil or sugar undifferentiated from non GMO be labelled? What about natural GMOs like sweet potatoes? What about calrose rice and grapefruit and mint and golden promise barley? It is not an easy task to say this is GMO or it is not GMO. There is lots of gray.

 

[portlandatheist]

And some greenhouses use artificial light.

As a consumer concerned about the environment, I would want to know if the produce grown in a greenhouse used artificial light from electricity generated from renewable resources.

And to think that they deceptively hide greenhouse produce among greenhouse free produce. Those bastards! Attempting to keep you ignorant and in the dark. What a horrible world we live in, people are eating sugar not knowing that the sugar is GMO! Can you imagine eating GMO sugar thinking that it was normal sugar? The difference is huge, its like the difference between a house and a haunted house.