Would you support the vaccination of people without their knowledge or consent?
That's not the point. I'm just using the example to show people are easily misguided even if plenty of good information is available to them. The idea that extra information about GMO would lead to more people making rational choices is most likely wrong. More publicity could easily have the opposite effect.
As someone who used paper maps and compasses daily in the wilderness for more than a decade, I can assure you they most definitely tell you where you are
I assume you've never been in the middle of the ocean with a paper map and a compass ?
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that consumer decisions have to be based on the "latest scientific insights"? Do you believe someone who chooses a blue shirt over a red shirt must only do so if there is scientific evidence that supports blue being superior to red?
You're very confused. Obviously, red/blue is just a personal preference, whereas GMO/non-GMO is based on health-related fears. If you want to argue that GMO is purely a personal choice, without any relationship to health or safety, then voluntary labels work just fine.
Manufacturers are already required to display all sorts of things they would rather not, including caloric content, nutritional value if any, and actual ingredients used to assemble the product
And as soon as you can show that GMO food affects consumer health, like the caloric content does, then we should have a warning for GMO as well.
If the manufacturers had taken the billions they've spent fighting labeling and used it to tell consumers about all the miraculous, world-saving properties of their GMO products, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion
"Manufacturers wouldn't spend billions on an information campaign if they didn't have something to hide"
The consumer does not only have the right to be informed, he MUST be informed, whether he likes it or not, to perform his elementary function in the system!
How does this work ? A consumer picks up a product, sees the GMO label, and puts it down. Then, from behind the produce section, an armed guard forces him to watch a 3 hour lecture on the science of genetic engineering until the consumer is satisfied that the GMO product is safe, and puts it back in the cart.
Only an informed consumer who knows every aspect of the product could possibly choose the "best" product
Every aspect ? So it's not sufficient to tell that the product contains GMOs. The consumer must be informed about the exact base pair sequence that has been altered.
Can you maybe think of a reason you wouldn't want manufacturers to have the ability to put whatever they damn well please on the label of their products?
I didn't say that, and I don't think they should. But it's hypocritical to yell "you can't handle freedom", if your "freedom" means you want to force producers to put irrational warning labels on their products that will scare away consumers.
Consumers already have the ability to choose. Manufacturers can label their products as "GMO free", if they want. You can assume that any product not labelled as such contains GMOs. This allows freedom to both.
...so it's okay if manufacturers lie just a little bit?
No.
how are the people who do not want GMOs in their foods supposed to have their voices heard in the "free market" if they can't tell what foods contain GMOs?
That's quite obvious. Any producer is free to include a label that says "GMO free", and sell his products for a premium.
They were nationalist, but with left wing social economic policies. That's pretty common among populist parties. A lot of people get confused because they're trying to map a complex set of opinions and policies onto a 1-dimensional left-right spectrum.
My point was that "freedom" is never absolute. Obviously, there must be limits to the freedom of the manufacturer, based on recognized safety and health standards. It is equally reasonable to limit freedoms of consumers to optimize their actual health and safety. Crowding the label with irrelevant information could cause them to make choices that are actually bad for them.
To provide complete information about a product and all its subproducts, would probably require a few hundred pages. I don't think a label of leaflet would suffice. The most logical way would be to put it on the producer's website, with subproduct links to different manufacturers, that you can access by scanning the UPC code. For people without internet access (far fetched, but okay), they could go to a public library, or even write a letter.
If there is demand for products grown only with light in the 400-500nm range, then it would make sense to add it to the standardized labels. Presumably nobody cares.
I bet if you put the warning on the label, people will start to care.
And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them
Most of the conditions of the food is hidden from them. Why single out GMO as one of the required pieces of information ? Why not mandate accurate display of all pesticides and herbicides, or why not the additives that were added to the blend of rubber of the tires of the harvester ?
You don't think 99% of consumers can look at a product and decide if they want to consume it?
Apparently you misunderstand the term "informed decision". Obviously anybody can make a decision based on what they read on the label, but in most cases, that decision won't be based on the latest scientific insights, but on crap they read from a random stranger on the internet.
The concept some seem to be in favor of where information is withheld because they believe others are incapable of making informed decisions or otherwise fear a negative unjustified reaction strikes me as a particularly tyrannical and unsustainable position.
I would like to know if any bees that were used to pollinate the crops in a product (including feed for animal products) were near cell phone towers during their pupal stage. Do you think we should require that on the label ? If not, your position is particularly tyrannical.
And then people find out it's not as tasty, and stop buying the product. It happened to Dutch grown tomatoes. They didn't use GMO, just regular cross breeding to make really big tomatoes, and then found out that German importers avoided them, calling them "water bombs". After that, there was a noticeable effort to go back to smaller and tastier varieties.
You are arguing that people should be denied the right to know if their food contains GMOs
I don't remember arguing that at all. I'm just saying that GMO labelling results in many people making uninformed choices.
If you believe that GMO products are unsafe, why would you want to allow them to be sold at all ? That's atrocious and sick. And appalling.
I'm all for choice, but the problem is that 99% of consumers are lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision relating to GMO products. And if expert opinion is that GMO products are unsafe, why allow them at all ?
Slashdot Mirror
Would you support the vaccination of people without their knowledge or consent?
That's not the point. I'm just using the example to show people are easily misguided even if plenty of good information is available to them. The idea that extra information about GMO would lead to more people making rational choices is most likely wrong. More publicity could easily have the opposite effect.
As someone who used paper maps and compasses daily in the wilderness for more than a decade, I can assure you they most definitely tell you where you are
I assume you've never been in the middle of the ocean with a paper map and a compass ?
Where did you get the ridiculous notion that consumer decisions have to be based on the "latest scientific insights"? Do you believe someone who chooses a blue shirt over a red shirt must only do so if there is scientific evidence that supports blue being superior to red?
You're very confused. Obviously, red/blue is just a personal preference, whereas GMO/non-GMO is based on health-related fears. If you want to argue that GMO is purely a personal choice, without any relationship to health or safety, then voluntary labels work just fine.
Manufacturers are already required to display all sorts of things they would rather not, including caloric content, nutritional value if any, and actual ingredients used to assemble the product
And as soon as you can show that GMO food affects consumer health, like the caloric content does, then we should have a warning for GMO as well.
Food also has labeling for amounts of fiber. is that to stigmatize fiber?
Fiber content has been scientifically proven to affect health.
Don't be a dope. If GMO's have the benefits you say they do, then labeling will help sell them.
Vaccines have huge benefits, and despite giving people much more information, fewer people want them.
If the manufacturers had taken the billions they've spent fighting labeling and used it to tell consumers about all the miraculous, world-saving properties of their GMO products, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion
"Manufacturers wouldn't spend billions on an information campaign if they didn't have something to hide"
The consumer does not only have the right to be informed, he MUST be informed, whether he likes it or not, to perform his elementary function in the system!
How does this work ? A consumer picks up a product, sees the GMO label, and puts it down. Then, from behind the produce section, an armed guard forces him to watch a 3 hour lecture on the science of genetic engineering until the consumer is satisfied that the GMO product is safe, and puts it back in the cart.
Only an informed consumer who knows every aspect of the product could possibly choose the "best" product
Every aspect ? So it's not sufficient to tell that the product contains GMOs. The consumer must be informed about the exact base pair sequence that has been altered.
You find stupid claims on both sides of the spectrum. That's why we have organisations that perform scientific tests on food products.
Can you maybe think of a reason you wouldn't want manufacturers to have the ability to put whatever they damn well please on the label of their products?
I didn't say that, and I don't think they should. But it's hypocritical to yell "you can't handle freedom", if your "freedom" means you want to force producers to put irrational warning labels on their products that will scare away consumers.
Consumers already have the ability to choose. Manufacturers can label their products as "GMO free", if they want. You can assume that any product not labelled as such contains GMOs. This allows freedom to both.
...so it's okay if manufacturers lie just a little bit?
No.
how are the people who do not want GMOs in their foods supposed to have their voices heard in the "free market" if they can't tell what foods contain GMOs?
That's quite obvious. Any producer is free to include a label that says "GMO free", and sell his products for a premium.
They were nationalist, but with left wing social economic policies. That's pretty common among populist parties. A lot of people get confused because they're trying to map a complex set of opinions and policies onto a 1-dimensional left-right spectrum.
Which of course is completely the same thing as putting genes from a glow-worm into a cat.
Why not drop the useless hyperbole, and provide a sane argument instead ?
My point was that "freedom" is never absolute. Obviously, there must be limits to the freedom of the manufacturer, based on recognized safety and health standards. It is equally reasonable to limit freedoms of consumers to optimize their actual health and safety. Crowding the label with irrelevant information could cause them to make choices that are actually bad for them.
A lot of people buy organics because they are higher quality heirloom strains, not the watery flavorless crap from the monofarm.
Thank you for making my point.
To provide complete information about a product and all its subproducts, would probably require a few hundred pages. I don't think a label of leaflet would suffice. The most logical way would be to put it on the producer's website, with subproduct links to different manufacturers, that you can access by scanning the UPC code. For people without internet access (far fetched, but okay), they could go to a public library, or even write a letter.
If there is demand for products grown only with light in the 400-500nm range, then it would make sense to add it to the standardized labels. Presumably nobody cares.
I bet if you put the warning on the label, people will start to care.
And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them
Most of the conditions of the food is hidden from them. Why single out GMO as one of the required pieces of information ? Why not mandate accurate display of all pesticides and herbicides, or why not the additives that were added to the blend of rubber of the tires of the harvester ?
You don't think 99% of consumers can look at a product and decide if they want to consume it?
Apparently you misunderstand the term "informed decision". Obviously anybody can make a decision based on what they read on the label, but in most cases, that decision won't be based on the latest scientific insights, but on crap they read from a random stranger on the internet.
The concept some seem to be in favor of where information is withheld because they believe others are incapable of making informed decisions or otherwise fear a negative unjustified reaction strikes me as a particularly tyrannical and unsustainable position.
I would like to know if any bees that were used to pollinate the crops in a product (including feed for animal products) were near cell phone towers during their pupal stage. Do you think we should require that on the label ? If not, your position is particularly tyrannical.
And then people find out it's not as tasty, and stop buying the product. It happened to Dutch grown tomatoes. They didn't use GMO, just regular cross breeding to make really big tomatoes, and then found out that German importers avoided them, calling them "water bombs". After that, there was a noticeable effort to go back to smaller and tastier varieties.
Still - it is their right to know what is in their food.
There's a difference between a right to know, and a requirement to label it on a package.
Too bad you can't handle freedom
Too bad you can't handle freedom of manufacturers to choose what they want to display.
You are arguing that people should be denied the right to know if their food contains GMOs
I don't remember arguing that at all. I'm just saying that GMO labelling results in many people making uninformed choices. If you believe that GMO products are unsafe, why would you want to allow them to be sold at all ? That's atrocious and sick. And appalling.
This gives consumers the choice.
I'm all for choice, but the problem is that 99% of consumers are lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision relating to GMO products. And if expert opinion is that GMO products are unsafe, why allow them at all ?