4 ms·

> 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 Wh

by 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

by pdkl95 10y ago

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