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

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

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.

GMO is just another one of those Bushie-esque cheats of unhealthy people to find a way to justify eating food high in fat and sugar. "It's not the empty calories in my chips that make them unhealthy, it's the corn syrup gluten GMOs!" More educated unhealthy people, but still Bushies nonetheless.

That's a pretty lazy, inaccurate generalization. I don't know any fat people who lie to themselves via GMOs. If someone knows enough about food to actually care about GMOs, they actually care about their food enough to avoid high fructose corn syrup and other genuinely unhealthy additives.

I don't care who you are, if you cut out or seriously restrict HFCS and gluten in your diet you will almost certainly lose weight and become healthier.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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

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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

FTFY

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Glad to see the level of discourse on this issue is "you guys are idiots" vs. "no you're the dumb ones."

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

FTFY

    I don't know if I have seen an issue where the left-wing viewpoint is less tenable. Maybe corporate personhood, but even then I am not sure.

[Flake]

People deserve to know what's in their food, and it's wrong for many of you to side with businesses instead of the consumers.

[Nhoj]

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.

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.

GMO is just another one of those Bushie-esque cheats of unhealthy people to find a way to justify eating food high in fat and sugar. "It's not the empty calories in my chips that make them unhealthy, it's the corn syrup gluten GMOs!" More educated unhealthy people, but still Bushies nonetheless.

That's a pretty lazy, inaccurate generalization. I don't know any fat people who lie to themselves via GMOs. If someone knows enough about food to actually care about GMOs, they actually care about their food enough to avoid high fructose corn syrup and other genuinely unhealthy additives.

I don't care who you are, if you cut out or seriously restrict HFCS and gluten in your diet you will almost certainly lose weight and become healthier.

Only insomuch as its hard to avoid those things, so you are forced to make changes. If you just switch from HFCS to a different sugar the difference is negligible.

[Simfan34]

People deserve to know what's in their food, and it's wrong for many of you to side with businesses instead of the consumers.

Not if it has no meaning and serves only to scare people for no good reason. I side with consumers of food who oppose labelling things like THIS PRODUCT USES FERTILISER MADE FROM CHEMICALS and THIS PRODUCT WAS GROWN USING MECHANICALLY SOURCED WATER.

[MurrayBannerman]

People deserve to know what's in their food, and it's wrong for many of you to side with businesses instead of the consumers.

God forbid that there's a vast amount of scientific, peer-reviewed research that says there no greater risk with GMOs than conventionally sourced food.

Vaccines cause autism, too, guys.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

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

@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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

People deserve to know what's in their food, and it's wrong for many of you to side with businesses instead of the consumers.

Not if it has no meaning and serves only to scare people for no good reason. I side with consumers of food who oppose labelling things like THIS PRODUCT USES FERTILISER MADE FROM CHEMICALS and THIS PRODUCT WAS GROWN USING MECHANICALLY SOURCED WATER.

If a product uses "fertilizer made from chemicals," then it cannot legally be labeled as organic. These things really do matter to a lot of people, you know.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Only insomuch as its hard to avoid those things, so you are forced to make changes. If you just switch from HFCS to a different sugar the difference is negligible.

There is a pretty significant difference in how the human body processes the two. HFCS requires absolutely no digestion and is much more readily absorbed into the blood stream than table sugar. It thus spikes insulin to a greater degree, leading the body to produce more fat. It's also a far more addictive drug than regular sugar, which leads to cravings that are stronger than with regular sugar. That encourages people to eat more product with HFCS than they would if it was made with regular sugar.

Given the sheer amount of HFCS in the food supply -- it accounts for 15-20% of our caloric intake -- swapping it out for something the body's digestive system is more capable of handling will have a significant effect on your body's operation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People deserve to know what's in their food, and it's wrong for many of you to side with businesses instead of the consumers.

Not if it has no meaning and serves only to scare people for no good reason. I side with consumers of food who oppose labelling things like THIS PRODUCT USES FERTILISER MADE FROM CHEMICALS and THIS PRODUCT WAS GROWN USING MECHANICALLY SOURCED WATER.

If a product uses "fertilizer made from chemicals," then it cannot legally be labeled as organic. These things really do matter to a lot of people, you know.

Actually it can be labelled organic, depending on how the fertilizer was made. Organic farming is not the same as chemical-free farming.

[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.

[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

Looks like the recount didn't change much: http://www.katu.com/politics/Oregon-GMO-labeling-proponents-concede-defeat--285521151.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.