3 ms·
Although it is painted relatively negative in the article, I feel it's a good thing. Of course, EU is known for its overregulation, but consumer rights are not
by kensai 2y ago
Although it is painted relatively negative in the article, I feel it's a good thing. Of course, EU is known for its overregulation, but consumer rights are not to be neglected.
- kranke155 2y agoMost “EU overregulation” is just consumer regs being painted in a bad light for American consumers, so the Us govt won’t imitate it. EU banning most forms of GMOs was once considered wild over regulation.
- m463 2y agoI kind of wonder if "overregulation" and "unionization" are two terms carefully chosen to be negative by corporate interests?
- ronsor 2y ago"Overregulation" as a word inherently means something negative. "Unionization" doesn't mean anything negative by default.
- pixelpoet 2y agoLike how "piracy" in the context of software licence violations is equated with raping and pillaging on the high seas, and the phrase "drugs and alcohol" appeals to those who might feel uncomfortable with alcohol being a (first class, world's most popular after sugar) drug.
- esperent 2y ago> world's most popular after sugar Leaving aside the weird categorization of sugar as a drug - yes, I know it's addictive, but not all addictive things are drugs - caffeine is considerably more popular than alcohol.
- dom3k 2y agoCaffeine is a psychoactive substance of the stimulant class. You could definitely categorize it as a "drug".
- esperent 2y agoI know, I'm taking issue with calling sugar a drug, not caffeine.
- pixelpoet 2y agoIf I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it? I've always maintained that most "drugs" are just drugs other people dislike, and everyone is apparently happy to go along with this cognitive dissonance; hence the common phrase "drugs and alcohol", "drunk driving" vs "drug driving" etc etc.
- esperent 2y ago> If I told you a consumable substance is mind-altering, habit-forming, pleasurable and difficult to quit, very bad for your health in the quantities most abusers take it, but they continue to do so anyway- what would you call it? Macdonald's food?
- john01dav 2y agoGMOs in and of themselves are fine. It's just a technology. Banning something just because it's a GMO is stupid policy, and definitely over regulation. GMOs are a technology. One can modify a plant or other organism for many purposes. Furthermore, concerns over intellectual property rights over GMOs are a question for how to regulate this technology, not a reason to ban it.
- vasco 2y agoIt's not banned there's many approved ones: https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/gmo/search https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/gmo/search But it's also important to review each variation and study it closely to avoid potential food safety issues.
- philjohn 2y agoThis appears to be the main difference between the EU and the US. In the EU you need to prove your thing won't be harmful before you launch it. In the US you launch it, but then if it's proven to be harmful it might get banned. I refer to that form of regulation as "closing the door after the horse has already bolted regulation".
- kranke155 2y agoThis is the American position. “If you can’t prove it’s bad now, it should be legal immediately”. Europe food regulation runs on the precautionary principle. You have to prove it’s safe first. Turns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup. Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected. But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease. In the US this was never a thought.
- kranke155 2y agoThey never banned all GMOs so the very fact that you think that is interesting. Think about it - who told you that? Why? Who benefited ?
- 0dayz 2y agoWhat's wrong with GMO?
- kranke155 2y agoTurns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup. Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected. But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease. In the US this was never a thought.
- riffraff 2y agoI'm ok with most EU regulations and I still consider banning most GMOs wild over regulation. It's an ideological choice driven by FUD instead of being based on actual science.
- Yoric 2y agoAt the time, the rationale was that there was not enough knowledge on the long-term effects of GMO.
- kranke155 2y agoWhich was 100% right.
- kranke155 2y agoTurns out most GMOs were fine but they actually allowed for a huge increase in the use of Roundup. Roundup is wildly aggressive pesticide and a lot of GMOs were called “Roundup ready” crops, so they could absorb (in theory!) huge amounts of Roundup without being affected. But the huge increase in the use of Roundup in America might be behind (according to some) the increase in neurocognitive disease. In the US this was never a thought.
- riffraff 2y agoExactly, but the EU could have limited glysophate use, instead of blanket banning GMOs while still allowing imports of soy beans etc grown with it. (Noticeable: partial bans on glysophate have happened later).
- kranke155 2y agoNobody’s perfect, but not allowing GMOs without long term impact assessments was seems like the right decision. It might have the saved the EU tens to hundreds of billions in fixing the after effects of glyphosate on human food, which the US is now dealing with. It’s quite simple - protect your food source, protect it from any change whatsoever that’s not 100% necessary, and you are likely protecting the health of hundreds of millions.