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

[King]

Yes, we don't want to give consumers this info because in likelihood they will choose GMO-free food and that would be awful for society.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Yea, how is this bad?  I'm not saying GMOs are inherently bad, but what's wrong with giving people information?  Is there something tangible we can compare this to? 

GMOs are seen as "scary" and this would provide no benefit to consumers. It would needlessly stigmatise an important innovation in food production. It's a dumb idea.

Okay, I can see both sides to this then. 

[Simfan34]

Yes, we don't want to give consumers this info because in likelihood they will choose GMO-free food and that would be awful for society.

Exactly. As we know people are terrible, and this would be terrible for starving people who need more food to be produced.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yea, how is this bad?  I'm not saying GMOs are inherently bad, but what's wrong with giving people information?  Is there something tangible we can compare this to? 

It's sort of like nutrition labels.  There comes a point at which there are diminishing returns in including more information.  Even there, government action is more intended to provide a standardized format for the info some consumers desire so as to make it easy to locate.  In the absence of any demonstrated harm to people from eating GMO products, requiring products that contain them to note that seems like overkill, especially since producers are free to trumpet the fact their product is GMO-free if they want so there already is a de facto labeling of GMO products going on.  The situation is similar to BGH in dairy products, or more generally with organic foods.

[dead0man]

yah but mah nfomashun!



(FTR I actually hate responses like that so take that as me making fun of those kinds of posts more than anything)

[Person Man]

At least these weren't vaccine measures, right? The tin foil hats can climb back into the trees.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes, it would be nice to know if a product contains GMO, but labeling requirements are likely to place significant costs on food production, given current practices, so there ought to be a compelling reason for this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/05/gmo_food_labels_would_label_laws_in_vermont_maine_connecticut_increase_food.html

[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?

[Ebowed]

I don't have a problem with GMO labeling, but I think it's more important that suppliers accurately state whether their products come from animal origin.  Right now, if a manufacturer of cheese, for example, doesn't state that their rennet is non-animal, I tend to assume that they continue to use the rennet made from dead animal parts.  It would be nicer to know.

I don't think it's such a controversial ask, or tantamount to fear-mongering, or whatever, that products would be labeled to say whether or not they are vegan or vegetarian friendly.

[KCDem]

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

[New_Conservative]

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

[Associate Justice PiT]

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?

     Along those lines, there is also the notion that if something is labelled, it must be important. They don't put the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes for fun, after all. Someone who is not otherwise paying attention might be misled to think that it means GMOs are cause for concern, because why would they be labelled if they were not?

[Angel of Death]

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.

[dead0man]

Hitler liked dogs.

[ag]

Good.

[Simfan34]

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.

You'd think Monsanto was some gargantuan monopolistic parastatal judging by the obsession some people have about it...

[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.

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's down to a 0.1% margin now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

Are they done counting? It looks like the margin is less than 1000 votes now.

[IceSpear]

Are they done counting? It looks like the margin is less than 1000 votes now.

If they are, it looks like our predictions will by further screwed up, as Kitzhaber barely missed cracking 50%.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Goddammit Oregon.

[Flake]

Yea, how is this bad?  I'm not saying GMOs are inherently bad, but what's wrong with giving people information?  Is there something tangible we can compare this to? 

GMOs are seen as "scary" and this would provide no benefit to consumers. It would needlessly stigmatise an important innovation in food production. It's a dumb idea.

I mean it's not like people deserve to know what's in their food.

Even then, corporations are there to make profit, and if people buy more organic food, the corporation will ultimately have to switch more towards organics so they can be profitable. Isn't that an essential part of a "free market" economy? Businesses need to adjust to survive in a competitive environment?

[Türkisblau]

There is nothing to prove that GMOs are harmful to people in anyway and are rather good for the environment due to increased productivity. The scaremongering happening with any science that people don't like, especially coming from the same people who claim that you can't question climate change because of the science backing it up, is incredibly hypocritical.

[Deus Naturae]

Yea, how is this bad?  I'm not saying GMOs are inherently bad, but what's wrong with giving people information?  Is there something tangible we can compare this to? 

GMOs are seen as "scary" and this would provide no benefit to consumers. It would needlessly stigmatise an important innovation in food production. It's a dumb idea.

I mean it's not like people deserve to know what's in their food.

Even then, corporations are there to make profit, and if people buy more organic food, the corporation will ultimately have to switch more towards organics so they can be profitable. Isn't that an essential part of a "free market" economy? Businesses need to adjust to survive in a competitive environment?

If people genuinely prefer organic food, they'll buy it regardless of whether it is labeled "GMO-free" or not.

[greenforest32]

Are they done counting? It looks like the margin is less than 1000 votes now.

Results are supposed to be certified on December 4 but Measure 92 (GMO labeling) had a small enough margin that it triggered a recount which looks like it'll be done by December 10: http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/M92%20Recount%20Log.pdf