4 ms·

I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about wh

by aftbit 10y ago

I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?

OMFGscience 10y ago
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?
- cowmix 10y ago
  Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
  - beefman 10y ago
    Conventional cultivars are widely patented too.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > probably a patent Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season crops. It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ). They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).
  - OMFGscience 10y ago
    There's nothing specific to GMOs that makes them patentable. Hybrid seeds can be patented, irradiated seeds can be patented, both of which are allowed to be labeled as organic.
  - ende 10y ago
    I want all food that was packaged on Friday the 13th to be explicitly labeled as FRIDAY THE 13TH FOOD because I have an irrational fear of superstitious dates. I demand the government require all food manufacturers to comply with this labeling regime.
- sdjhgfskuy 10y ago
  "They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment" Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
  - OMFGscience 10y ago
    I didn't. But there's no evidence that any approved GMOs are harmful in any way.
    - sdjhgfskuy 10y ago
      the way you wrote it, that's what it sounds like, thanks for the clarification
lukeschlather 10y ago
I would like to require companies to provide a list of pesticides/fertilizers used, as well as what cultivar they are growing. Simply labeling GMO/non-GMO is not useful. It describes a process rather than an effect. It's like requiring people to label non-grafted plants. Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.
seattle_spring 10y ago
Before labeling: "Why wouldn't you label it? More information is better!" After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"
- Xeoncross 10y ago
  You can't stop people from making presuppositions about life. This is a silly statement since people already question GMO's even without the label. For example: "If Organic is safe, why is it labeled?"
  - riffraff 10y ago
    more interestingly "if ingredients are safe, why are they listed?"
    - seattle_spring 10y ago
      Not a fair comparison at all. Some people may be allergic to certain ingredients. Some ingredients are also obviously less healthy than others. There is literally zero distinction between a GMO and non-GMO ingredient that is not completely fabricated or imagined.
orangecat 10y ago
And that's why we should put stickers on science books saying that some people dispute the theory of evolution. That's just truthful information, right?

by aftbit 10y ago

OMFGscience 10y ago

The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a successful marketing campaign by the competition?

cowmix 10y ago
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
- beefman 10y ago
  Conventional cultivars are widely patented too.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > probably a patent Then you want labeling about patents, not "genetic modification".
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The farmers know well enough what they are buying when they buy single season crops. It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ). They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).
- OMFGscience 10y ago
  There's nothing specific to GMOs that makes them patentable. Hybrid seeds can be patented, irradiated seeds can be patented, both of which are allowed to be labeled as organic.
- ende 10y ago
  I want all food that was packaged on Friday the 13th to be explicitly labeled as FRIDAY THE 13TH FOOD because I have an irrational fear of superstitious dates. I demand the government require all food manufacturers to comply with this labeling regime.
sdjhgfskuy 10y ago
"They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment" Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
- OMFGscience 10y ago
  I didn't. But there's no evidence that any approved GMOs are harmful in any way.
  - sdjhgfskuy 10y ago
    the way you wrote it, that's what it sounds like, thanks for the clarification

lukeschlather 10y ago

I would like to require companies to provide a list of pesticides/fertilizers used, as well as what cultivar they are growing. Simply labeling GMO/non-GMO is not useful. It describes a process rather than an effect. It's like requiring people to label non-grafted plants. Organic labeling is somewhat useful, since it does provide a list of prohibited fertilizers and pesticides, but I would prefer to simply have a list.

seattle_spring 10y ago

Before labeling: "Why wouldn't you label it? More information is better!" After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"

Xeoncross 10y ago
You can't stop people from making presuppositions about life. This is a silly statement since people already question GMO's even without the label. For example: "If Organic is safe, why is it labeled?"
- riffraff 10y ago
  more interestingly "if ingredients are safe, why are they listed?"
  - seattle_spring 10y ago
    Not a fair comparison at all. Some people may be allergic to certain ingredients. Some ingredients are also obviously less healthy than others. There is literally zero distinction between a GMO and non-GMO ingredient that is not completely fabricated or imagined.

orangecat 10y ago

And that's why we should put stickers on science books saying that some people dispute the theory of evolution. That's just truthful information, right?