4 ms·

If I don't want my oats to change, isn't a label to let me know what hasn't changed exactly what I would want?

by josh-wrale 10y ago

colinthompson 10y ago
This reminds me of seeing proscuitto for sale that was labeled "gluten free!".
- josh-wrale 10y ago
  Prosciutto is basically defined by its lack of gluten, as prosciutto made with gluten would be worth labeling, no? Oatmeal is not defined by lack of GMO. Labeling deviation from what came before and is widely expected to be the case now is the heuristic I have in mind.
  - mhb 10y ago
    So: "Still with no soy", "Still with no gluten", "Still salmonella-free", ... ?
    - josh-wrale 10y ago
      For each: - If soy-free is reasonably expected to be the case then I'm suggesting no label. - If gluten free is reasonably expected to be the case the I'm suggesting no gluten-free label. Salmonella free makes for a different case. Presence of salmonella is not likely to be a feature for anyone. Therefore, it's reasonably expected to NEVER be present and so, don't require a label.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I don't want my oats to change, isn't a label to let me know what hasn't changed exactly what I would want? A "GMO free" label doesn't tell you what hasn't changed, it only tells you (assuming that the standards are clear enough that it tells you anything at all) one mechanism by which change was not introduced.
- josh-wrale 10y ago
  Agreed. And that's the mechanism many consumers want to know isn't employed -- because consumer suspicion is centered on that mechanism -- and quiet use of that mechanism is generally speaking advantageous for the producer. Producers of food products may benefit in many ways and the consumer may benefit from a lower price and sure in other ways, but the consumer may suffer "because GMO" (not saying this is true, but this is the popular objection to GMO). Hence, the non-GMO label makes sense because it informs the consumer of something actionable that they want to know about, which otherwise they cannot easily reason about. A great example of this is: how many people really know that oats are never today GMO? The label isn't useful because oats aren't typically GMO, but rather because people don't readily know this -- and consumers want a direct answer to their call to know if this mechanism is at work in their food. And again, this is not because consumers know for a fact that GMO is harmful, but rather because they perceive it as a poignant risk to their health. Placebo effect has a negative twin in nocebo [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

If I don't want my oats to change, isn't a label to let me know what hasn't changed exactly what I would want?

colinthompson 10y ago

This reminds me of seeing proscuitto for sale that was labeled "gluten free!".

josh-wrale 10y ago
Prosciutto is basically defined by its lack of gluten, as prosciutto made with gluten would be worth labeling, no? Oatmeal is not defined by lack of GMO. Labeling deviation from what came before and is widely expected to be the case now is the heuristic I have in mind.
- mhb 10y ago
  So: "Still with no soy", "Still with no gluten", "Still salmonella-free", ... ?
  - josh-wrale 10y ago
    For each: - If soy-free is reasonably expected to be the case then I'm suggesting no label. - If gluten free is reasonably expected to be the case the I'm suggesting no gluten-free label. Salmonella free makes for a different case. Presence of salmonella is not likely to be a feature for anyone. Therefore, it's reasonably expected to NEVER be present and so, don't require a label.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I don't want my oats to change, isn't a label to let me know what hasn't changed exactly what I would want? A "GMO free" label doesn't tell you what hasn't changed, it only tells you (assuming that the standards are clear enough that it tells you anything at all) one mechanism by which change was not introduced.

josh-wrale 10y ago
Agreed. And that's the mechanism many consumers want to know isn't employed -- because consumer suspicion is centered on that mechanism -- and quiet use of that mechanism is generally speaking advantageous for the producer. Producers of food products may benefit in many ways and the consumer may benefit from a lower price and sure in other ways, but the consumer may suffer "because GMO" (not saying this is true, but this is the popular objection to GMO). Hence, the non-GMO label makes sense because it informs the consumer of something actionable that they want to know about, which otherwise they cannot easily reason about. A great example of this is: how many people really know that oats are never today GMO? The label isn't useful because oats aren't typically GMO, but rather because people don't readily know this -- and consumers want a direct answer to their call to know if this mechanism is at work in their food. And again, this is not because consumers know for a fact that GMO is harmful, but rather because they perceive it as a poignant risk to their health. Placebo effect has a negative twin in nocebo [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo