5 ms·

Considering how anti-science republicans tend to be, I'm not surprised.

• mac01021 10y ago
  They may tend to be, but they are not universally so. And the appearance of partisan bias is much easier to avoid if you have at least one guy from each party.
• maverick_iceman 10y ago
  You forget that Bernie Sanders wants mandatory labeling of GMO foods. That's also anti-science scaremongering.
  • virmundi 10y ago
    Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer?
    • Retra 10y ago
      It's scare-mongering because all food is GMO food. There's no reason to put "GMO" on it except to scare people who have an irrational fear of it.
    • knodi123 10y ago
      > Why is it scaremongering? Because, like it or not, a label that says "note, this product contains acids" would alarm many people who would immediately ask themselves "Wait, why do they need to tell me that? Better just play it safe." > Why should we exclude stock/source information from the consumer? It's not about hiding information, it's about the regrettable fact that mandatory labelling communicates a lot more than just the words on the label.
      • virmundi 10y ago
        I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. What I don't know, because I don't have source data, is what will spliced in gene based foods (that's what I mean by GMO, not the equivocation straw man people throw up in the Mendel sense) do to both the human GI tract and to the environment at a macro level. Until then, I'd like the option of "noping" out. Just the option. I might not even do it because as Stewie says, "They say star light gives your cancer, but what doesn't these days?" I just want the option. Scientists have come along and said, "Stupid layman, trust us. Of course we're just like those people who said use lead in paint, then in gas, and advocated for Asbestos". That' not scientific. I want to see the data. Until then, my default is skepticism, you know the rational default [1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement
        • RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
          You last paragraph, but for a few words would be the exact same thing I expect to hear from a climate change "skeptic"
          • justinlaster 10y ago
            No it isn't. He's advocating for publication of data. No where does that align with a climate change "skeptic"
        • knodi123 10y ago
          > I know the science of genetics (as well as a layman should). I read Super Pigs and Wonder Corn as child. I'm actually pro-genetic engineering. And therefore I trust you to make a reasoned decision. How about your cousin who is on deepak chopra's mailing list, though? Will she make the same reasoned decision? All the debate is about is mandatory labels on the side of the can. How about, people who know what they're doing and can make reasoned decisions, can look up information on their smart phone or whatever- but the people who are going to make a kneejerk emotional decision that winds up penalizing GMO foods and benefiting the organic alternative for emotional reasons won't see any scary labels that exert undue influence on the marketplace- would that be a reasonable compromise?
    • niij 10y ago
      Because "GMO" is not an ingredient.
    • Spivak 10y ago
      > Why is it scaremongering? This is actually a mildly subtle point, which is why people who don't 'get it' are so immediately dismissive. There's nothing wrong with providing more information to consumers. Hell every product we sell could come with small book's worth of information about its chemical contents, health risks, place of origin, worker conditions which could be considered valuable to the buyer. The question is why this specific piece of information is being fought for so hard. And that's because there's a movement that vehemently opposes GMOs and are trying to use labeling to scare people into avoiding (what their opponents say is) a completely safe product. I'm not a scientist so I'm not qualified to evaluate the various and contradictory studies about the risks or non-risks of GMO foods. However, this battle should be taking place in labs and the FDA. Using labeling and the fact that GMO sounds scary to hurt GMO producers is the definition of anti-science FUD. It's not anti-science in the sense that the movement disagrees with a widely held scientific consensus but that they are using psychological and political tricks to subvert the actual scientific process. > We're told if it's kosher. This is not a government requirement, there are committees of jews that evaluate if a product is kosher or not and allow their seal to be placed on the packaging. Jewish families will even have a preference for which committees they trust.
      • justin66 10y ago
        Another "mildly subtle" point: the anti-labeling thing is promulgated by pro-GMO lobbyists and pro-GMO business interests, but those people are engaging in very short-term thinking, as is so often the case in American business. If they were to support GMO labeling the whole thing would blow over as soon as the label became "normalized." That's just a hypothesis, but based on the way genuinely unhealthy things tend not to have disappeared from the market just because they're on a label, I think it's true.
    • ChrisPebble 10y ago
      Kosher labelling is not mandatory. Mandating that all foods be either labelled as KOSHER or NON-KOSHER would be a better example, and something I hope nobody would support. Producers should be free to add any of these labels to their products, but mandating that all products are labelled in regard to GMOs when there's no evidence that GMOs have any proven impact on health or the nutrition of the food does border on scaremongering.
    • sampo 10y ago
      > We're told if it's kosher. Does USA have mandatory kosher labeling on foods?
    • rconti 10y ago
      Why shouldn't you have your credit score tattooed on your forehead? Shouldn't merchants know if you're more likely to do a chargeback?
      • virmundi 10y ago
        Nope. The system is implicit that the credit card companies will take care of that. While both sides need an adjudicator, there is a system in place to spot/stop bad actors. Not a perfect system, fraud still happens. But a system none the less.
        • rconti 10y ago
          That is true, but merchants with more chargebacks get punished with bad rates. It costs them real money to not know if a customer is a bad actor.
  • Pxtl 10y ago
    Bernie Sanders is hardly the mainstream democratic party. He barely considers himself part of it. Anti-scientific attitudes on global warming are mainstream among Republican leadership, while fringe among Democrats.
  • tzs 10y ago
    Wanting labeling is not anti-science. GMO is a tool. It is itself neither good nor bad, neither safe nor unsafe. Those who wish to do good can use GMO to do great good. It is more powerful than non-GMO methods, and so potentially can let them do greater good than they can with traditional methods such as selective breeding. The same holds for those who wish to do bad things. They can currently do bad things with selective breeding and other non-GMO methods. GMO gives them more power to more extreme bad things and do them faster. The question of whether such foods should be labeled comes down to whether or not there will be those who will GMO for bad things, and if so whether or not consumers who wish to avoid those bad things should be given the information to do so. Science is completely silent on how to answer this question. Looking at the foods that fill a typical American supermarket, I do not find myself confident that the major food companies have my long term best interests at the top of their priority list when they design a new food product.
• jonwachob91 10y ago
  Yes, b/c republican's aren't allowed to believe in climate change and scientist aren't allowed to believe in small government, power to the states, and that the constitution is not a living document...
  • justinlaster 10y ago
    No one said they weren't allowed. It's just exceedingly unlikely that as a scientist you would align yourself with a political party that has had a staunch anti-science platform for the past two decades.
    • ocschwar 10y ago
      Key words: past two decades. I remember the days before their descent to this insanity.
  • mkaziz 10y ago
    By Republicans, I didn't mean your average Joe who votes Republican, but people running for office who have to toe the party/big-donor line (regardless of what they believe) or else lose access to support/funding. I highly doubt all Republicans in Congress don't believe in climate change. But they say what they have to say in order to get the votes they need to stay in Congress, and while they keep saying that, it doesn't make sense for a pro-science group to support them or their ilk.