5 ms·

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

by 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.
      - unchocked 10y ago
        Because you are talking about requiring such labels. Requirements are there for a reason, even if that reason is implicit.
        danbruc 10y ago
        And the reason is that people want to know it. Forget everything pro or contra GMOs, just see it as consumer information in the same way the usual ingredients labels are. I actually feel like this argument should be turned around - consumers have a right to know what is in their products, someone opposing GMO labeling should justify why it is okay or even better to hide this information from consumers.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > informational If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error? If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      Don't you consider free choice for consumers about what they want to eat something useful? Products are labeled as vegan so that people can avoid, for example, milk in their groceries. Cows living in captivity for milk production vs some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs. At least to me it is not obvious which of both is the better reason to put a label on products. I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers? We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs That's the part that's delusional. > Cows living in captivity for milk production That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin. Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small". > needed GMOs to feed our people We crossed that line a long time ago. > Less usage of biocides? YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides. > they are time tested Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly. Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth. Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?
- danbruc 10y ago
  I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population. And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)? Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.

by danbruc 10y ago

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.
    - unchocked 10y ago
      Because you are talking about requiring such labels. Requirements are there for a reason, even if that reason is implicit.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        And the reason is that people want to know it. Forget everything pro or contra GMOs, just see it as consumer information in the same way the usual ingredients labels are. I actually feel like this argument should be turned around - consumers have a right to know what is in their products, someone opposing GMO labeling should justify why it is okay or even better to hide this information from consumers.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > informational If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error? If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    Don't you consider free choice for consumers about what they want to eat something useful? Products are labeled as vegan so that people can avoid, for example, milk in their groceries. Cows living in captivity for milk production vs some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs. At least to me it is not obvious which of both is the better reason to put a label on products. I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers? We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs That's the part that's delusional. > Cows living in captivity for milk production That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin. Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small". > needed GMOs to feed our people We crossed that line a long time ago. > Less usage of biocides? YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides. > they are time tested Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly. Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth. Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?

danbruc 10y ago
I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population. And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)? Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.