Whether or not genetic modification is inconsequential remains to be seen. Have they done any long term tests? Do consumers get to to choose what they want (oh, we can't have that now, can we)? Whether or not they cause harm is irrelevant. Consumers like me *want* to know.
If they are so safe, labeling is not a problem. Give the consumer what they want. Don't deceive them.
You know as well as I do that the aliases permitted here are for the sake of anonymity. Why can't you judge my statements based on your experience and logic? You certainly seem to have that in abundance.
Still a red herring. Stick to the subject of GMOs. Do I have to right to know if the crops used to make the food is GMO or not? If no, then you favor deceit. If so, then we have a basis for discussion of how and when to label the food,
Food in general isn't patented. Food in general, doesn't have genes shot through the seeds with silver particles, nor does it use viruses as a vector to intentionally insert "beneficial" genes into the host genome. So in the context of this debate, yes, the omission of a label on the food is deceit.
With regard to nuclear magnetic resonance machines, I understand what you're getting at. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not something most people would understand. However, they are relying upon a doctor to provide them with the information required to make an informed decision about undergoing a scan for MRI.
The difference is this: at the doctors office, if I ask about it, he'll tell me what it is. At the grocery store, they have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to GMOs. If they do know, even management isn't very friendly to a discussion on the topic. I've sent emails to managers at markets and get no response on the subject. I've asked them at the market and they're ignorant on the subject, so they can't offer an opinion.
To me, it's still deceit without a label and I have a right to know so that I choose a different product if I want. But that's not fair to you because "it's great technology that deserves a chance". As far as I can tell, you don't think I can make an informed decision about it, so you want to protect me from that decision through deceit. How thoughtful.
What makes it so ridiculous? If Monsanto is willing to stand behind the safety of their products, they won't mind accepting liability for them. I think it's a fair trade if they want royalties on their patents.
And no, I am not being disingenuous. Please enlighten me if you think I'm wrong.
The way I see it, is that if Monsanto or whoever is so proud of their invention, they should properly label the product so that people can make a choice. Whether or not they're informed is not really the issue since they have no way of knowing without the labeling.
From my perspective, mankind isn't even remotely smart enough to control a mistake through genetic engineering of food. Let's put a leash on this now and make them do the tests just like any other product. Let consumers decide with a label, just like any other product.
Encouraging wider adoption of GMOs through deceit is wrong.
Now that's a different perspective that I didn't hear about in the news or other sources I've reviewed. I would like to see the law written in a way that makes it easy to determine what is labeled and where liability can be traced. Maybe there is a better way to do this.
Let's take away the patent protection and see how enthusiastic Monsanto is. I would also add labeling and strict liability in case they somehow manage to gut the food supply with a mistake.
There it is again! The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons. This is the biggest problem with patents on standards, not just a big problem for technological innovation in general.
It would be nice if courts were to give more weight to the cost of patents in terms of lost downstream innovation space rather than to just assume that patents = innovation.
If Apple wasn't demanding $30-40 per device, negotiations might have gone a lot better. Apple behaves as if they honestly believe that others should pay for more it's patents and that they should pay nothing for patents belonging to others.
I think it's a combination of patents and "health care" industry protection from so-called free trade agreements. Noted economist Dean Baker has documented the trade and patent protection that the health care industry gets, and that the same protections are rarely ever mentioned by economists.
If "free trade" is good enough for electronics, clothing, cars and the rest of the working class, then it's good enough for the health care industry.
Boldrine and Levine have show rather conclusively that drug development tends to go where the patents are not in their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm). They also effectively demonstrate that the introduction of new drugs actually slowed with the introduction of patent protection in any country where patent protection is introduced.
For some reason, the assumption that patents foster innovation is taken as a fact without looking at the evidence amassed so far. I think it's grand that Boldrine and Levine lend a voice to skepticism of the "patents foster innovation" mantra, but I wonder, just how did they get on the board in a district of the Federal Reserve?
Given jerks like Lemelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson), of patent extension to the ultimate conclusion in the barcode scanning realm, innovation will be retarded in the extreme if we allow patents to continue. With the technology available now, especially with the advent of 3-D printers, patents may not even necessary to induce innovation in the near future. The technology available to us now makes reverse engineering much easier than it used to be.
One example of trade secrets that I truly detest is the food ingredient trade secret. I would like to know what goes into the food, rather than to read "artificial flavors and colors". Maybe you're right that patents discourage trade secrets, but given the level of secrecy exercised by the biggest corporations now, I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not genetic modification is inconsequential remains to be seen. Have they done any long term tests? Do consumers get to to choose what they want (oh, we can't have that now, can we)? Whether or not they cause harm is irrelevant. Consumers like me *want* to know.
If they are so safe, labeling is not a problem. Give the consumer what they want. Don't deceive them.
I agree with you there.
It's a question of honesty, not stupidity.
Thanks for that very interesting analysis. I wasn't aware that the FDA was doing that sort of thing.
You know as well as I do that the aliases permitted here are for the sake of anonymity. Why can't you judge my statements based on your experience and logic? You certainly seem to have that in abundance.
Every living thing on the planet has protein. That includes plants.
Still a red herring. Stick to the subject of GMOs. Do I have to right to know if the crops used to make the food is GMO or not? If no, then you favor deceit. If so, then we have a basis for discussion of how and when to label the food,
They manage in Europe, why not here?
Food in general isn't patented. Food in general, doesn't have genes shot through the seeds with silver particles, nor does it use viruses as a vector to intentionally insert "beneficial" genes into the host genome. So in the context of this debate, yes, the omission of a label on the food is deceit.
With regard to nuclear magnetic resonance machines, I understand what you're getting at. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not something most people would understand. However, they are relying upon a doctor to provide them with the information required to make an informed decision about undergoing a scan for MRI.
The difference is this: at the doctors office, if I ask about it, he'll tell me what it is. At the grocery store, they have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to GMOs. If they do know, even management isn't very friendly to a discussion on the topic. I've sent emails to managers at markets and get no response on the subject. I've asked them at the market and they're ignorant on the subject, so they can't offer an opinion.
To me, it's still deceit without a label and I have a right to know so that I choose a different product if I want. But that's not fair to you because "it's great technology that deserves a chance". As far as I can tell, you don't think I can make an informed decision about it, so you want to protect me from that decision through deceit. How thoughtful.
Thanks for the red herring.
There is a rational argument for labeling: honesty.
So that's your justification for deceit? You're comparing food that people ingest with a medical diagnostic instrument. I fail to see the comparison.
What makes it so ridiculous? If Monsanto is willing to stand behind the safety of their products, they won't mind accepting liability for them. I think it's a fair trade if they want royalties on their patents.
And no, I am not being disingenuous. Please enlighten me if you think I'm wrong.
The way I see it, is that if Monsanto or whoever is so proud of their invention, they should properly label the product so that people can make a choice. Whether or not they're informed is not really the issue since they have no way of knowing without the labeling.
From my perspective, mankind isn't even remotely smart enough to control a mistake through genetic engineering of food. Let's put a leash on this now and make them do the tests just like any other product. Let consumers decide with a label, just like any other product.
Encouraging wider adoption of GMOs through deceit is wrong.
Hmm. I must have missed something. Wasn't this thread about food labeling?
Now that's a different perspective that I didn't hear about in the news or other sources I've reviewed. I would like to see the law written in a way that makes it easy to determine what is labeled and where liability can be traced. Maybe there is a better way to do this.
Thanks for the perspective on prop 37.
Cows and bulls eat a lot of grain. Cut down on the animal husbandry and we can feed the humans on the planet.
Let's take away the patent protection and see how enthusiastic Monsanto is. I would also add labeling and strict liability in case they somehow manage to gut the food supply with a mistake.
If GMOs are really so safe, why the tremendous resistance to putting a simple label on the food?
There it is again! The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons. This is the biggest problem with patents on standards, not just a big problem for technological innovation in general.
It would be nice if courts were to give more weight to the cost of patents in terms of lost downstream innovation space rather than to just assume that patents = innovation.
Tragedy of the anti-commons?
If Apple wasn't demanding $30-40 per device, negotiations might have gone a lot better. Apple behaves as if they honestly believe that others should pay for more it's patents and that they should pay nothing for patents belonging to others.
The term, "vexatious litigant" comes to mind. I suspect the courts will be happy to oblige Apple with appropriate remedies for Motorola.
I think it's a combination of patents and "health care" industry protection from so-called free trade agreements. Noted economist Dean Baker has documented the trade and patent protection that the health care industry gets, and that the same protections are rarely ever mentioned by economists.
If "free trade" is good enough for electronics, clothing, cars and the rest of the working class, then it's good enough for the health care industry.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/08/04/why-don-t-we-globalize-health-care/
Boldrine and Levine have show rather conclusively that drug development tends to go where the patents are not in their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm). They also effectively demonstrate that the introduction of new drugs actually slowed with the introduction of patent protection in any country where patent protection is introduced.
For some reason, the assumption that patents foster innovation is taken as a fact without looking at the evidence amassed so far. I think it's grand that Boldrine and Levine lend a voice to skepticism of the "patents foster innovation" mantra, but I wonder, just how did they get on the board in a district of the Federal Reserve?
Given jerks like Lemelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Lemelson), of patent extension to the ultimate conclusion in the barcode scanning realm, innovation will be retarded in the extreme if we allow patents to continue. With the technology available now, especially with the advent of 3-D printers, patents may not even necessary to induce innovation in the near future. The technology available to us now makes reverse engineering much easier than it used to be.
One example of trade secrets that I truly detest is the food ingredient trade secret. I would like to know what goes into the food, rather than to read "artificial flavors and colors". Maybe you're right that patents discourage trade secrets, but given the level of secrecy exercised by the biggest corporations now, I don't think so.