3 ms·

> 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 gain

by 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
  - danbruc 10y ago
    > some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs That's the part that's delusional. I don't doubt that most research suggests that GMOs are safe for health and environments but I don't know how one would conclude that there are no residual risks. History has enough examples even if not many. Just asserting that it is safe is a unscientific as seeing it as declaring it the beginning of the apocalypse. > Cows living in captivity for milk production That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. That was only meant as an example why people want to know what they eat, they have diverse concerns. 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. I never said something like this, I only argued for labeling GMOs so that people can decide for themselves whether to buy the or not. > needed GMOs to feed our people We crossed that line a long time ago. You left out the first world part. The EU, for example, does produce (almost) no GMOs but imports some. I didn't look up the exact numbers but given that we also throw away about a third of our food I am pretty sure we don't need GMOs. > 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. My point was just that we have plants of which we know that they are good to consume so it seems not unreasonable to want to continue to do so instead of taking up risk - however small - with new ones. 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". We will probably have to back up a bit, the discussion became quite fragmented and we are losing sight of the original issue. I am not against GMOs, at best I am for being careful. My original point was that there is a nonnegligible number of people not wanting GMOs - for good reasons or not - and we should just label GMOs so that everyone can decide for themself. In the EU we already do this - although it is in the small print - but in the end I have no stakes in what the US or some other country does. For me it just seems a reasonable thing to do in order to pour oil on troubled waters. It doesn't really harm and everyone can eat what he likes. It won't help for people afraid of environmental issues but I guess more people are concerned about their personal health than about possible environmental impact.

by pdkl95 10y ago

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
- danbruc 10y ago
  > some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs That's the part that's delusional. I don't doubt that most research suggests that GMOs are safe for health and environments but I don't know how one would conclude that there are no residual risks. History has enough examples even if not many. Just asserting that it is safe is a unscientific as seeing it as declaring it the beginning of the apocalypse. > Cows living in captivity for milk production That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. That was only meant as an example why people want to know what they eat, they have diverse concerns. 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. I never said something like this, I only argued for labeling GMOs so that people can decide for themselves whether to buy the or not. > needed GMOs to feed our people We crossed that line a long time ago. You left out the first world part. The EU, for example, does produce (almost) no GMOs but imports some. I didn't look up the exact numbers but given that we also throw away about a third of our food I am pretty sure we don't need GMOs. > 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. My point was just that we have plants of which we know that they are good to consume so it seems not unreasonable to want to continue to do so instead of taking up risk - however small - with new ones. 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". We will probably have to back up a bit, the discussion became quite fragmented and we are losing sight of the original issue. I am not against GMOs, at best I am for being careful. My original point was that there is a nonnegligible number of people not wanting GMOs - for good reasons or not - and we should just label GMOs so that everyone can decide for themself. In the EU we already do this - although it is in the small print - but in the end I have no stakes in what the US or some other country does. For me it just seems a reasonable thing to do in order to pour oil on troubled waters. It doesn't really harm and everyone can eat what he likes. It won't help for people afraid of environmental issues but I guess more people are concerned about their personal health than about possible environmental impact.