in other good news, GMO labeling loses in OR and CO

[Alcon]

Good.

My problem with the "why not inform consumers?" argument is that there are a ton of pieces of information available about the production of every consumer good.  We have to leave some of them up to supply-and-demand, because otherwise we'd have to have a giant booklet with every consumer good.  The reason GMOs are targeted for labeling is because there's this weird, purist paranoia about them.  We already have a huge proportion of the American population believing they're bad, and cherry-picking them for labeling is just going to increase that baseless fear.  What's the point of spending resources to play into baseless fears, to provide no usable consumer information?

[Alcon]

Bumping this because this is nonsense:

Everyone cheering this should be ashamed of their shilling for Monsanto. Disgusting.

Any decent human being should stop and think at least ten times before deciding to take the same position on any issue as Monsanto, probably the most evil corporation not directly involved in fossil fuels.

I've thought about my position more than ten times.  Have you thought about yours once?  Besides "it mildly inconveniences a company that I don't like," do you have any rational reason to support this?  It may mildly inconvenience Monsanto, but it also increases an irrational, common stigma against a technology with some very significant upsides.  If you're not going to dismount from your moral high-horse to analyze a policy realistically, at least be moralistic consistently.  The hardcore anti-GMO people have derailed projects like golden rice, and other projects that save lives.  Why aren't they abysmal in your book?

I don't see the problem with giving consumers information on what is in their food they eat, so I would have voted yes.

That's not quite what genetic engineering is.  It's not "in your food."  It's a production method that makes food chemically different, but not in a uniform way where identifying something as "genetically engineered" is helpful to the consumers.  It's not the same thing as natural hybridization, but that's the same deal.  If you're going to label every input, protection method and technique used in making food, no matter how unimportant, you're going to have a 20-page label that lists largely useless information.  Cherry-picking GMO status doesn't make sense.  It also feeds into the (baseless) perception a lot of Westerners have that genetic engineering is unsafe.  There are some reasonable concerns to discuss about our food supply, but this is a depressing bogeyman, especially for the New Age-y elements on the left.

[Alcon]

It might provide no benefit to you. But to the larger group of "consumers," yes, there are many of us who would prefer this stuff be labeled. And there are plenty of valid reasons to not want to eat GMO food. For me, it's not a food safety issue, it's a food quality issue. I find genetic modification frequently prioritizes crop hardiness and sugar content, not taste or quality.

Even if that's a fairly weak correlation, it's a totally rational consumer preference.  However, how does it justify mandatory labeling?  I've already explained some of the issues I see with a labeling regime -- it increases costs (probably modestly) in the supply chain, and feeds into people's gross, anti-technology paranoia, which spills over into ridiculousness like bans on Golden Rice.  Even if there's a valid consumer preference here, why is it one that should be regulated, as opposed to left to market demands?

Also, this same concern applies -- perhaps even more acutely -- to "natural" genetic manipulation through breeding practices.  In fact, in recent history, that's probably the main purpose for which we've used conventional breeding.  If we support mandatory labeling GMOs of for the reason you offer, why should we not label that too?

I hope the right side wins.  The arguments made by idiots who don't want GMO labeling are ridiculous.

Thanks, dude.  I've made several thoughtful posts on this issue in threads you were in, responding to your arguments.  If you're the "right side" and I'm an "idiot," would you like to respond to these arguments?

[Alcon]

Ideally there would be complete transparency over foods. I think it's unhealthy as a society to treat food production as some unfathomable black box industry, seeing as agriculture is both the most a) essential and b) problematic economic sector. I think, broadly, I support this only on a federal scale though - it is very problematic to have a piecemeal approach to this issue.

Ideally, in a world of infinite time and resources, where people rationally parsed information, there would be complete transparency on everything.  Unfortunately, that's not our world.  We have to prioritize transparency in terms of its benefits and its costs.

GM is extremely unfairly maligned, mainly due to the bastards that produce GM seeds and the inherent fear of the novel. I'd certainly trust some GM crops over some of the "non-transgenic-but-rather-screwed-up" crops that are completely unregulated because the category of "essentially all food" is much too scary for activists to take on, preferring the easy targets like

Agreed.

@MB. People do like to trot out the "peer-reviewed research" line and they are absolutely right - but for one brutal flaw. No GM crop is the same as the other. Most are harmless, and probably better than the sort of crap sold as "organic". Perhaps they are less necessary than its bright-eyed proponents declare, but are essentially standard crops. But no GM crop is the same as the other - and just because every GM crop out there so far is OK, does not mean everything is awesome in the GMO world. A lot of (sane) anti-GMO's are not concerned about genetic modification, per se. (As I said the sane ones, not the "OMG FRANKENFOODS!!!" types that Green parties like to whip up on these sort of debates. No, they're concerned about the world that surrounds GMO's.

Agreed, also.  Labeling products merely as GMO is useless information.  Labeling specific GMOs is somewhat more useful, because they could potentially cause allergic reactions or other issues.  This is true with conventional breeding too, though.  This isn't a compelling reason to treat information disclosure different with GMO than other forms of genetic manipulation.

I've talked about the DoA prematurely releasing GM papaya earlier this thread, which was annoyingly ignored because everyone finds it much more enjoyable to call each other morons (the comparisons with nuclear power are breathtaking). Luckily for GMO company's PR manager, it was safe - but it is a warning about the dangers of being doey eyed about "scientific advancement". And even in infancy the GMO industry has been remarkably non-transparent and arrogant, with the government providing rather arbitrary regulations. It's not a good start.

No disagreement, although I think calling that "lucky" is a stretch.  There's no reason to believe it would be unsafe.  Also, as much as this happening is problematic, it doesn't really have anything to do with labeling GMOs.  The agriculture industry isn't a good one, and agriculture (especially with novel technologies) presents some issues we should be thoughtful about.  No disagreement there.  GMO labeling is just neither thoughtful nor helpful.

GMO's are not inherently evil, and they certainly aren't inherently good. The decision to use GMO's should come down to one thing (and my opinion on the matter consistently fluctuates depending on the time of day): are they necessary to feed all the people currently projected to be living on the planet. Not profits on cash crops. (excepting plastic-producing GM crops which are fantastic). Not because "it's progress and that means it's good, because progress is good".

I don't think progress has to be "necessary" to be good, but otherwise agreed.

It is difficult to underestimate the danger approaching the field of agriculture, especially if current trends continue. The world population is increasing, the amount of arable land is decreasing and the rapid increase in productivity associated with the Green Revolution is at a standstill. GM proponents say that their techniques are the only way to counteract this disturbing trend, but I've never seen evidence that GM crops are necessary - especially considering the many, many (i hate to use this word, as agriculture is inherently an unnatural activity) more "natural" (please forgive me for using that horrific word non-ironically!) ways to increase productivity, decrease demand (no, not eugenics), push efficiency and also limit land use/decrease environmental devastation.

Are those alternatives equally or more cost-effective and unproblematic, though?  I don't see why the standard is "necessary."

TL/DR : Don't hate the crops, hate the players; GM proponents need to focus on less arguing with nutcases and more on the supposed need for the bridge they're selling.

Something like 40% of Americans actively believe that GMOs are harmful, and another chunk are unsure.  I'm not saying positive advocacy isn't worthwhile, but the whole anti-GMO movement is fueled by "I'm scared that I don't know what's in my food!" nonsense.  Maybe positive advocacy is the way to combat that trend, but when only a small minority of people are aware of the evidence of the general safety of genetic engineering, it's not the best environment for positive advocacy to succeed.