Opinion of Union of Concerned Scientists

[politicus]

What is your opinion of UoCS??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

[Mr. Smith]

It appears to lean FF, though I question its faith in the free market.

[Simfan34]

Fearmongering HPs.

[RFayette]

Fearmongering HPs.

[PJ]

Ironically pretty anti-science on GMOs.

[TNF]

Opposition to GMOs = HP

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's interesting that their favoured nuclear design is the European Pressurised Reactor. The ones Europe is building at the moment all seems to be elaborate scams.

Anyway, taking a moderate ground on GMO crops is the way to go, but I've said this too much so I don't want to repeat myself. They're fighting the good fight on Palm Oil and nuclear disarmament (among others) though.

[politicus]

Ironically pretty anti-science on GMOs.

You should be careful using the phrase "anti-science" in this context. You can be critical of GMO on a scientific basis.

[politicus]

Fearmongering HPs.

Pointing out risks is not fearmongering.

[DavidB.]

Hmm. Good intentions, but some questionable/out-of-touch positions. Given that I tend to judge people and organizations by their actions, and given that I'm absolutely allergic to out-of-touch academics, I go for lean HP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ironically pretty anti-science on GMOs.

You should be careful using the phrase "anti-science" in this context. You can be critical of GMO on a scientific basis.

It turns out that "anti-science" really means "anti-something I agree with because it sounds cool".

I say that as somebody who basically thinks GMO's may be needed in future. People (greens and technolovers alike) love these kwiksolutions a bit, err, too much.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ironically pretty anti-science on GMOs.

You should be careful using the phrase "anti-science" in this context. You can be critical of GMO on a scientific basis.

Adding to this, 'science' as a concept shouldn't imply value judgments. It's not 'anti-science' to not do something just because it's possible. I don't know what kind of philosophical modernism it is exactly that this idea of 'anti-science' comes from, but it's unseemly.

[SWE]

Using the term "anti-science" revokes your right to have your position taken seriously.

[TNF]

Fearmongering HPs.

Pointing out risks is not fearmongering.

The risks of what, exactly?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Contrary to climate change or vaccines, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

[sparkey]

Contrary to climate change or vaccines, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

Of course there is.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is nothing inherently bad about modifying genes of plants. We've been doing it since the agricultural revolution for starters. And most (with a few notable exceptions like GM papaya) GM crops are rigorously tested (there is a real risk of plants becoming allergenic through the insertion of foreign genomes, but it's normally found as they are brought to market). Honestly I think "traditionally" selected crops are just as suspect.

[PJ]

Admittedly, anti-science is probably not the best phrasing to use, but I maintain that the organization's position on GMOs goes against scientific consensus. Their support for labeling of genetically modified food is particularly concerning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Their support for labeling of genetically modified food is particularly concerning.

Why?

[Хahar 🤔]

Their support for labeling of genetically modified food is particularly concerning.

Why?

Because mandatory labeling is baseless fearmongering.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Their support for labeling of genetically modified food is particularly concerning.

Why?

Because mandatory labeling is baseless fearmongering.

I just don't see any reason why it could ever be an actively bad thing to label what's in food, even if doing so is kind of pointless.

[PJ]

Their support for labeling of genetically modified food is particularly concerning.

Why?

Because mandatory labeling is baseless fearmongering.

I just don't see any reason why it could ever be an actively bad thing to label what's in food, even if doing so is kind of pointless.

Mandatory labeling of food products should be reserved for ingredients and processes that have legitimate consequences in terms of diet. GMOs do not fit under that category, but if they are labeled, people are going to assume that they are dangerous and it will only promote the unhealthy and unnecessary fear of GMOs.

[Marokai Backbeat]

People should have a right to know what is in the food they're purchasing, regardless of whether I think they're being paranoid or not.

The "if consumers see the GMO label, they might think its bad for them" argument is a f**king joke that libertarians would make. GMOs are (pretty much) safe as far as we know, but the argument against allowing that to be on food labels is to basically say the stability of the holy free market is of higher consequence than a basic consumer right.

[Хahar 🤔]

People should have a right to know what is in the food they're purchasing, regardless of whether I think they're being paranoid or not.

The "if consumers see the GMO label, they might think its bad for them" argument is a f**king joke that libertarians would make. GMOs are (pretty much) safe as far as we know, but the argument against allowing that to be on food labels is to basically say the stability of the holy free market is of higher consequence than a basic consumer right.

Nobody's said anything about "allowing that to be on food labels". People can put whatever they want on their food labels as long as it's not false. Do you not see the difference between "allowing" and "mandating"?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ideally we should also know what pesticides, fungicides and herbicides were used on our food, where it was made, whether any animals were harmed, the carbon, methane etc. emissions involved in their production, the wages of the farmhands and whether they have the right to unionise, the water usage in production etc.

Question is how big is the label? Like, if I see contains GMO on a foodstuff it doesn't tell me very much about how it was modified or why or whatnot. It could be seen as completely random, like mandatory labelling to tell if the farmer was named "Dave" - and in fact would probably immediately demystify the process (a lot of random processed foodstuffs cobtain GMO's that people merrily munch today, and I doubt people will give a crap when they comprehend it).