Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 08:20:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Teosinte --> Corn?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Should Corn sold into shops be labelled as Genetically Modified Teosinte?  (Read 7797 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,271
Kiribati


« on: December 04, 2014, 05:59:51 PM »

Every fruit and vegetable should come with a complete description of its journey from birth to the supermarket, compiled and written by a professional biographer. Doesn't the consumer deserve to know?

Although it is of course ridiculous to go that far, I don't think much harm can come from increased transparency over food.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,271
Kiribati


« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2014, 07:17:43 PM »

Every fruit and vegetable should come with a complete description of its journey from birth to the supermarket, compiled and written by a professional biographer. Doesn't the consumer deserve to know?

Although it is of course ridiculous to go that far, I don't think much harm can come from increased transparency over food.

I hear that claim frequently from proponents of GMO labeling, almost always stated as if it were self-evident. I don't understand why it should be taken as obvious, and, even if it were, it would not be a particularly compelling rationale.

There is an argument to be made that labelling GM-crops demystifies the GM industry. Largely, the entire anti-GM movement (apart from "natural food" hucksters) is directly the fault of the stupidity and cravenness of the GM industry. People view GM crops in the abstract or through a fearful lens - sweetcorn with human ears or whatever - they do not make the connection with what is on their plate.

Basically the food industry is wasting money lobbying against "GM labeling". If more states pass the bills, and people realise that GM foods are in their everyday staples, the debate will take a much more reasonable tone than contemporary discourse. ("OMG u r so dumb and anti science lol!" "well ZOMG u must be shill for Monsanto!!!!!")
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,271
Kiribati


« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2014, 10:51:57 PM »

Perhaps you're right - after all I am placing my guesswork entirely on conjecture. But I do think the food industries sheer effort against labelling is self-defeating. People are fearful about GMO's, to the extent of being used by spivs that exploit fear. So far, the debate have been terrible PR for food companies. From the perspective of the public, the debate is between shadowy financially imposing food companies and a bunch of underdog hippies.

I think all the money spent constantly attacking state GM labelling laws like some nationwide whack-a-mole and use it to educate the public on the issue. Better, they can pre-empt the government and start labelling products themselves avoiding the problems of bureaucratic jiggering and patchwork like local laws. Once people see that, like, basically everything they eat is labeled; they may start to calm down.

The more people inform themselves on GMO's, the more likely they are to have a more nuanced opinion on the issue. But the current strategy of saying "lol public are dumbs" is moronic and self-defeating. I sometimes wonder who is in charge of PR of these stupid companies anyway. If they don't, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the industry; and hope we can find a way to feed the planet without these cretins.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,271
Kiribati


« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2014, 02:43:46 PM »

@Alcon

GMO companies don't have to prove to you or me - people who have actively sought information; and they certainty don't have to prove anything to rabid anti-GMO'ers who seek out absurd "facts" about transgenics. They need to prove to Joe Public what they are peddling is safe.

Your example of vaccines is a good one to prove my point actually. When vaccination programmes are announced without education or transparency - just a bunch of didactic men in white coats, they are fertile breeding ground for anti-vax conspironuts and shyster spivs. The public as a whole is not stupid, but it is susceptible to misinformation especially when Big Companies or Big Government is one of the parties. Public education and transparency about vaccines, yes, does not convince the fruitloops among us. They will always return to echo chambers to whine. But it has convinced the public as a whole that vaccines are good. That is the only escape for GMO's to escape the self-imposed mire they find themselves in.

I'm prepared to predict food companies will soon start providing the GM labels of their own volition.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.