Skeptics and GMO Labeling

The harm isn't to first world consumers it's to scientific advancement in general and the harm caused by the continued demonization of food advancements that are directly helping people in under developed countries have enough to eat.

The plea for "Just gives us the choice" is so often used by Woo Slingers because on the surface is sounds so simple and reasonable. But much like the "Equal time For Creationism / Teach the Controversy" Nonsense, which I still say this is a 1:1 parallel with, given the uneducated the impression that a controversy still exists when none does is dangerous.

No one has still answered my question. If tomorrow some idiot decided that food that was picked in the field by a guy named Ted was harmful and a bunch of idiots started to believe him should your local grocery store be forced to label all foods picked by a guy named Ted?
 
If they are using raw sewage as fertilizer on farms I for one would like to know. I AM NOT TRYING TO START A RUMOR HERE OR ANYTHING.
 
No one has still answered my question. If tomorrow some idiot decided that food that was picked in the field by a guy named Ted was harmful and a bunch of idiots started to believe him should your local grocery store be forced to label all foods picked by a guy named Ted?

I think yog_sothoth has answered that question. The answer is yes.

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.

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.

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.

He seems to have some misunderstandings about choice and about what it means to hide something but it is clearly his position that anything that becomes controversial (even if the issue is imaginary) should be labeled by mandate.
 
If they are using raw sewage as fertilizer on farms I for one would like to know. I AM NOT TRYING TO START A RUMOR HERE OR ANYTHING.

I've just done a few minutes of Googling to refresh my memory on this and it appears that the answer is that its not raw sewage (at least if it is being done legally) that is used but sewage that has been "aged"by sitting out in large open ponds o' poo. Pigs tend to be the best providers. I hesitate to provide any urls but, if you have a bit of time, do your own search -- it is fascinating. ;)

:th:
 
I think yog_sothoth has answered that question. The answer is yes.







He seems to have some misunderstandings about choice and about what it means to hide something but it is clearly his position that anything that becomes controversial (even if the issue is imaginary) should be labeled by mandate.
Right. And like was said earlier, we only need to label a subset of GMOs. We have no need to label GMO cheese because it is not in the "public's interest" because nobody gives a crap about GMO cheese but if we didn't distinguish GMO sugar from non GMO sugar on the other hand, that would be an incredibly deceptive thing to do.
 
I lived next to a farm for a couple years and not only do they throw barely aged at all poo into their fields, they also throw dead animal carcasses, the nitrates in the drinking water are lovely and you can't drink it at all, another fun fact is that there is no wildlife at on near a field, no birds, nothing, It might be because of all that grain they considerately leave around for the non existent wildlife to eat. Power lines are fun places too in rural areas, you can find hundreds of dead birds around power lines. It was also within walking distance of an abandoned minuteman missile silo. That actually was kind of cool
 
I lived next to a farm for a couple years and not only do they throw barely aged at all poo into their fields, they also throw dead animal carcasses, the nitrates in the drinking water are lovely and you can't drink it at all, another fun fact is that there is no wildlife at on near a field, no birds, nothing, It might be because of all that grain they considerately leave around for the non existent wildlife to eat. Power lines are fun places too in rural areas, you can find hundreds of dead birds around power lines. It was also within walking distance of an abandoned minuteman missile silo. That actually was kind of cool

Dude, I walk fields/ borders at various times of the year for various reasons, there are plenty of animals and birds.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
I am sure that I have seen trees wilted by 2,4-D, I have seen many dead insects. But the lack of critters is confusing to me, if you sit still long enough they just seem to be everywhere in the fields.
:)

I read, someplace, that those borders along fields that used to be left semi-wild are now being removed (to increase field sizes). The net effect has been that a lot of wild-flowers are now gone — along with the insects they fed. This then impacts birds and mammals too.

Mono is mono. Corn deserts. Just desserts.
 
I read, someplace, that those borders along fields that used to be left semi-wild are now being removed (to increase field sizes). The net effect has been that a lot of wild-flowers are now gone — along with the insects they fed. This then impacts birds and mammals too.

Mono is mono. Corn deserts. Just desserts.

Except for the corn. :)
 
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.

You can ask for warning labels.
 
What does that mean? It's a different company?

Yep. Same name, but due to various mergers and acquisitions, a different company. The anti-GMO idiots don't understand this.

Easiest way to think about it:

Old Monsanto (now called Solutia, a division of Eastman Chemical) was a chemical company.

New Monsanto (now called Monsanto) is a seed company.
 
I lived next to a farm for a couple years and not only do they throw barely aged at all poo into their fields, they also throw dead animal carcasses, the nitrates in the drinking water are lovely and you can't drink it at all, another fun fact is that there is no wildlife at on near a field, no birds, nothing, It might be because of all that grain they considerately leave around for the non existent wildlife to eat. Power lines are fun places too in rural areas, you can find hundreds of dead birds around power lines. It was also within walking distance of an abandoned minuteman missile silo. That actually was kind of cool

Sounds like you lived next to an "organic" farm.
 
I deny this completely. I was part of the early anti-gmo movement. Rarely was Monsanto mentioned. Very rarely. If you go back to early documentaries like "Fed Up" from 2002 Monsanto was rarely mentioned...maybe once or twice in passing in the documentary. Even in Canada, the home of the Percy Schmeiser lie, Monsanto was rarely mentioned....possibly because at the time of the supreme court case the media recognized Percy Schmeiser for the liar that he was, and so did the prominent environmentalists I hung out with. They sided with Schmeiser despite knowing that his claim about accidental contamination was clearly absurd. So it took a while for the myth to grow beyond the fringe of the fringe. If you go to say the UK where the movement gained steam from the BSE scare and Pusztai's crap research...it also wasn't about Monsanto.

My personal experience is that Monsanto was being elevated to its devil position about the time I left the anti-gmo movement. That was in the couple years leading up to the truly crap anti-gmo/anti-monsanto documentaries: "The World According to Monsanto" and "Food Inc" etc. Earlier documentaries like "Fed Up" were just as amazingly full of crap on every point they made, but they likely didn't become popular because the lacked a specific devil to focus on.

As Eric Hoffer's classic work "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" claims - mass movements don't need a god to succeed, but they do need a devil - real or imagined. So if Monsanto had not existed, the movement would have needed to create it....and indeed they did. The opposition to Monsanto was not there at the start because it takes a lot of years to make up the whole bunch of stories that the movement made up about Monsanto.

From the Daniel Guacamole Fox Facebook page.
 

Attachments

  • 11151046_613094172161456_4305403041540567587_n.jpg
    11151046_613094172161456_4305403041540567587_n.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 10

Back
Top Bottom