7 ms·

More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obvio

by danbruc 10y ago

More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of other issues like cross contamination and what not but I think it would make a really got start.

lukeschlather 10y ago
You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...
- danbruc 10y ago
  I don't see how GMO labeling could make the situation worse, as far as I can tell people are currently not looking at the potatoes in front of them wondering whether they may contain excessive amounts of alkaloids or not. People are buying their groceries according to price, past experiences, looking at the photo on the box and maybe reading the nutritional content. They are already eating a lot of stuff they better avoided and they do so knowingly. If they want to know whether it contains GMOs, tell them.
unchocked 10y ago
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food". Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.
- danbruc 10y ago
  80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      »Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
      - unchocked 10y ago
        You can't separate those things.
        danbruc 10y ago
        Why not? Make it blue, not red or green. Maybe even have it on everything, with and without GMOs, to avoid implicitly expressing any bias. People will surly complain that it is not red and has no skull and crossbones, but that's life.
        10y ago

by danbruc 10y ago

lukeschlather 10y ago

You can create poisonous food with conventional techniques. The problem with the anti-GMO movement is that they're focusing on gene splicing without worrying about conventional methods. Labeling and testing cultivars is not a bad idea, but simply labeling "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" gives a false sense of security. http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota...

danbruc 10y ago
I don't see how GMO labeling could make the situation worse, as far as I can tell people are currently not looking at the potatoes in front of them wondering whether they may contain excessive amounts of alkaloids or not. People are buying their groceries according to price, past experiences, looking at the photo on the box and maybe reading the nutritional content. They are already eating a lot of stuff they better avoided and they do so knowingly. If they want to know whether it contains GMOs, tell them.

unchocked 10y ago

The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass of consumers feel this way it will just be a cultural fact that GMO's are "unsafe" and food producers will avoid using them to avoid being seen as purveyors of "unsafe food". Something similar happened to nuclear power, and we got coal power instead. GMO's enable the intensive agriculture needed to support 7+ billion people with a lower environmental impact than would otherwise be possible, and the technology is still primitive. I don't want it to be stopped in it's tracks by mob psychology.

danbruc 10y ago
80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They feel about being forced to live with GMOs exactly the same way you feel about being forced to live with coal power, it's just a matter of on which side of the debate you are, both sides strongly believe to be on the right one.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    »Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
    - unchocked 10y ago
      You can't separate those things.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        Why not? Make it blue, not red or green. Maybe even have it on everything, with and without GMOs, to avoid implicitly expressing any bias. People will surly complain that it is not red and has no skull and crossbones, but that's life.
        10y ago