Opinion of Union of Concerned Scientists

[ingemann]

I'm happy that there's so many so enlighten techno-utopians here, who think that the consumers are not able to handle specific food labels. There's clearly a significant potion of the population who don't want GMOs, but those people's choice doesn't matter, the important part are the March Toward The Future under benevolent wisdom of Monsanto, a company who always put people first.

[PJ]

I'm happy that there's so many so enlighten techno-utopians here, who think that the consumers are not able to handle specific food labels. There's clearly a significant potion of the population who don't want GMOs, but those people's choice doesn't matter, the important part are the March Toward The Future under benevolent wisdom of Monsanto, a company who always put people first.

Not being anti-GMO =/= having a favorable opinion of Monsanto.

[ingemann]

I'm happy that there's so many so enlighten techno-utopians here, who think that the consumers are not able to handle specific food labels. There's clearly a significant potion of the population who don't want GMOs, but those people's choice doesn't matter, the important part are the March Toward The Future under benevolent wisdom of Monsanto, a company who always put people first.

Not being anti-GMO =/= having a favorable opinion of Monsanto.

Denying the consumers GMO labeling=serving Monsanto

I personal don't have a problem with GMO, it serve useful a purpose especially in field like medicine, but also production of a whole lot of products, ioncluding in fish aquaculture (where bigger and faster growing strains have been created). But here's the problem GMO crops have almost always one purpose, to increase their resistance to pesticides (which effect both the environment and consumer negative), so more of it can be used. Of course now someone will bring up GMO salt resistant rice or something else. The problem with that, is while those crops are usual brought up as example of the wonders of GMO, they're not out there, because there's few money in producing them for big companies, there's little economic benefit for the commercial producer of such a crop.

But let's keep pretending that the hostility toward GMO labeling is not a astroturf movement created through successful manipulation by big companies.

[TNF]

I'm happy that there's so many so enlighten techno-utopians here, who think that the consumers are not able to handle specific food labels. There's clearly a significant potion of the population who don't want GMOs, but those people's choice doesn't matter, the important part are the March Toward The Future under benevolent wisdom of Monsanto, a company who always put people first.

>implying that the Socialists on this forum trust Monsanto at all

yeah I don't think you get the whole socialism thing. I support GM crops and defend them against obvious snake oil salesmen on the so-called left, but that doesn't mean I trust/support Monsanto. The point is that GM crops rest on solid scientific evidence. As a socialist, I want the power represented by GM crops to be utilized in the public interest, i.e. by transforming the entire system of food production so that feeding people, rather than the pursuit of profit, is the end goal. You're arguing with a strawman in this thread, especially as the two vocal pro-GM people in it (myself and PJ) are leftists.

[ingemann]

I'm happy that there's so many so enlighten techno-utopians here, who think that the consumers are not able to handle specific food labels. There's clearly a significant potion of the population who don't want GMOs, but those people's choice doesn't matter, the important part are the March Toward The Future under benevolent wisdom of Monsanto, a company who always put people first.

>implying that the Socialists on this forum trust Monsanto at all

yeah I don't think you get the whole socialism thing. I support GM crops and defend them against obvious snake oil salesmen on the so-called left, but that doesn't mean I trust/support Monsanto. The point is that GM crops rest on solid scientific evidence. As a socialist, I want the power represented by GM crops to be utilized in the public interest, i.e. by transforming the entire system of food production so that feeding people, rather than the pursuit of profit, is the end goal. You're arguing with a strawman in this thread, especially as the two vocal pro-GM people in it (myself and PJ) are leftists.

Okay I hate to tell you this; there's a difference between the capitalist real world we live in and your imaginative world, where the workers own the means of production and GMO are created by state run institutions, whose purpose are not to turn a profit and serve public interests. In this real world we live in right now, when you have GMO crops in your food, you can be sure that these crops have been created with one purpose, to increase their pesticide resistance, which allow a greater use of pesticide, which are not good news for the environment or the consumers.

Of course if we lived in a world where large state run institutions produced new strains of drought and salt resistant crops, which the farmers could use, your argument would be meaningful and correct. We could wish we lived in such a world, because like state setting up infrastructure, controlling natural monopolies and having a monopoly on the use of force, it would make a lot of sense. But we don't live in that world, so consumer awareness are more important, than delusional dreaming by people who have been misled by Big Business propaganda. Something I don't find very socialist.

Of course I'm not just a poor and ignorant proletarian and not a wise revolutionary vanguard as yourself, so what do I know.

[Ebowed]

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.

Agreed strongly, and all of this strikes me as more important than whether the food is GMO or not.

[Mercenary]

FF, they seem to mirror my own positions.

As for GMOs, yes they should be labeled as everyone has a right to know what it is they are buying. If it results in people not buying GMOs then i think that is good. I dont support banning them, but I wouldnt be sad if the market caused them to stop being sold in the states due to lack of demand.

I think they are better than starving obviously though, so if they can help feed those who would otherwise go without food I support that.

[politicus]

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.

Agreed strongly, and all of this strikes me as more important than whether the food is GMO or not.

Some are, some are not. The fact that some people (especially in the US) use silly arguments against GMO does not invalidate all concerns about the spread of modified genes etc.

This is a political consumer issue. You should be allowed to protest against food created in ways you disagree with.

[Ebowed]

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.

Agreed strongly, and all of this strikes me as more important than whether the food is GMO or not.

Some are, some are not. The fact that some people (especially in the US) use silly arguments against GMO does not invalidate all concerns about the spread of modified genes etc.

This is a political consumer issue. You should be allowed to protest against food created in ways you disagree with.

Oh, I certainly agree with that.  I just find it a bit disturbing that there is an entire movement centered around the GMO thing while all of that other stuff is just happily ignored.  If I want to know whether cow fat was used as a preservative in apple juice, I have to contact the company.  That's ludicrous.  I want mandatory labeling.

[Хahar 🤔]

If it results in people not buying GMOs then i think that is good. I dont support banning them, but I wouldnt be sad if the market caused them to stop being sold in the states due to lack of demand.

Why? What problem do you have with GMOs?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

Agreed strongly, and all of this strikes me as more important than whether the food is GMO or not.

Some are, some are not. The fact that some people (especially in the US) use silly arguments against GMO does not invalidate all concerns about the spread of modified genes etc.

This is a political consumer issue. You should be allowed to protest against food created in ways you disagree with.

But the only real beef with GMO's that carried weight is on environmental grounds not health issues (aside from fringe issues around allergens and concerns surrounding indiscriminate pesticide usage). Therefore GMo labelling has just as much right as any of the environmental issues I mentioned (in fact it has less right, as "contains GMO's" is a rather vague label)