3 ms·

I don't think the hysteria is anti-scientific. It is more a suspicion of agricultural corporations, of secrecy and of American companies. The perception of Mo

I don't think the hysteria is anti-scientific. It is more a suspicion of agricultural corporations, of secrecy and of American companies. The perception of Monsanto is an excellent example. Corporate paternalism is not appreciated. Consider why companies lobbied so hard for GMO to not be labelled as such. If almost every product was labelled as GMO then after a while consumers would not care. They would be able to make their own choices about "regular" versus GMO. Instead the fight has been to "trust us" and to keep GMO secret. "Known to the State of California to cause cancer" is everywhere. No one bats an eyelid any more.

crusso 13y ago
The poster didn't mean that the hysteria was against Science itself, rather that it wasn't based upon any type of Scientific analysis or investigation. The fact that people will become apathetic to GMO labeling eventually doesn't mean that the industry won't fight to avoid the unwanted (and undeserved) stigma for now.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  > ... avoid the unwanted (and undeserved) stigma for now There is that paternalism again. It is not up to the producers of any product to decide if attention is undeserved. Consumers get to decide that. And yes some will be wrong etc. Shining a light and being truthful is the right way of doing things. The hysteria is not against science - it is against paternalism hiding itself as "trust us because science". Science requires being open and honest.
  - jrkelly 13y ago
    I actually think it is more fair for it to be up to the FDA to decide. The reason companies don't want labels is that people then assume the product is unsafe. Here is an MIT study finding exactly that for GMO labels: http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/gmo-labels-send-a-message-that-products-are-unsafe/ http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/gmo-labels-send-a-mess...
    - rogerbinns 13y ago
      The FDA decides if a product can even be sold. So what if truthfully labelled products are considered unsafe by some? Why shouldn't people be able to make up their own minds? The freedom that allows them to do that also also means sometimes they will be wrong. Again, so what? Sweeping it under the rug ("trust us") is not adequate. You do not foster understanding, science, progress or freedom by hiding things.

crusso 13y ago

The poster didn't mean that the hysteria was against Science itself, rather that it wasn't based upon any type of Scientific analysis or investigation. The fact that people will become apathetic to GMO labeling eventually doesn't mean that the industry won't fight to avoid the unwanted (and undeserved) stigma for now.

rogerbinns 13y ago
> ... avoid the unwanted (and undeserved) stigma for now There is that paternalism again. It is not up to the producers of any product to decide if attention is undeserved. Consumers get to decide that. And yes some will be wrong etc. Shining a light and being truthful is the right way of doing things. The hysteria is not against science - it is against paternalism hiding itself as "trust us because science". Science requires being open and honest.
- jrkelly 13y ago
  I actually think it is more fair for it to be up to the FDA to decide. The reason companies don't want labels is that people then assume the product is unsafe. Here is an MIT study finding exactly that for GMO labels: http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/gmo-labels-send-a-message-that-products-are-unsafe/ http://courantblogs.com/capitol-watch/gmo-labels-send-a-mess...
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    The FDA decides if a product can even be sold. So what if truthfully labelled products are considered unsafe by some? Why shouldn't people be able to make up their own minds? The freedom that allows them to do that also also means sometimes they will be wrong. Again, so what? Sweeping it under the rug ("trust us") is not adequate. You do not foster understanding, science, progress or freedom by hiding things.