For those that may not be aware, genetically modified organisms (hereafter GMO's) are a high controversy in the United States. It's getting a lot of attention... sort of. Recently Vermont drafted a law where food labels are required to list whether their products contain GMO's, and the food industry has responded by suing the State of Vermont on the grounds the law is unconstitutional.
I'm personally more apathetic to the cause than some people, like Neil Young, who's now boycotting Starbucks for supporting the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
My biggest concern regarding GMO's is their allegedly unchecked nature, but in regards to Neil Young leading this boycott, I'm not sure how far it will get. Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
By the way, you might as well remove those two links. Neither of them post any sources whatsoever, and therefore both are perfectly useless.
I'm not sure that you examined the "Facts about GMO" Website. First, it's only sources. It gives almost no information for itself and is mostly a collection of second-hand sources. Second, it takes a more neutral stance than the other link (which while does have sources, is definitely less reliable).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
By the way, you might as well remove those two links. Neither of them post any sources whatsoever, and therefore both are perfectly useless.
I'm not sure that you examined the "Facts about GMO" Website. First, it's only sources. It gives almost no information for itself and is mostly a collection of second-hand sources. Second, it takes a more neutral stance than the other link (which while does have sources, is definitely less reliable).
I mouseovered the links in the first block and most were not actual sources, but news sites. You right though. Down further it's more NCBI stuff and other scientific journals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact. When you instead take the position of suing the government so that you are allowed to hide it, I think you have to admit the optics work directly against you.
Teaming up with or agreeing with Monsanto (on basically anything) doesn't help this fact either.
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact.
This is my problem with all the food labeling requirements. If you think it would misrepresent your product to include factual information, you have bigger issues.
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact. When you instead take the position of suing the government so that you are allowed to hide it, I think you have to admit the optics work directly against you.
No. Either go all the way and make everyone tell what, how and where their products came from, or make none of them do it. To tell people that only certain products have to be mentioned is a double standard which biases people against those products.
Teaming up with or agreeing with Monsanto (on basically anything) doesn't help this fact either.
Meh. They're not that bad, to be honest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact. When you instead take the position of suing the government so that you are allowed to hide it, I think you have to admit the optics work directly against you.
No. Either go all the way and make everyone tell what, how and where their products came from, or make none of them do it. To tell people that only certain products have to be mentioned is a double standard which biases people against those products.
Such as? Give me an example of something you would consider analogous to genetic modification that is not required to be labelled, which would constitute a double standard.
This is my problem with all the food labeling requirements. If you think it would misrepresent your product to include factual information, you have bigger issues.
Labeling isn't free. Keeping track of everything isn't free. Imagine that some religion had a fierce hatred for beards and requested that all foods harvested by bearded men be labeled as such. For many proponents of GMO tech, the fear of GMO's is similar to a religious objection because the idea of GMO's causing harm to one's health when consumed is unsupported by scientific literature (bar a few exceptions they consider to have very sketchy methodology).
This isn't just about companies wanting to cut costs: it is about all else people might want for whatever reason to be put on a label. It is also a very popular trick for politicians to indirectly do away with what they don't like by subjecting people doing it to strict and expensive regulations. You see it happening with abortion clinics in the US. Stringent labeling also distorts markets by favoring consolidation into bigger companies.
A few things:
- If you're not keeping track of what is in your product, I don't feel bad for your company, you're negligent.
- Certain things, like 'sugar added' are important for consumers to know.
- Comparing it to bearded men is disingenuous. People have a right to know whats being used in the food they eat. If there is a furvor over using a product, good public relations and public education should be what you tackle, not being honest about what you include in your product.
- Labeling for abortion clinics is wrong for an entirely different set of reasons. What you're referring to is, in some state, abortion clinics being lumped in with freestanding ambulatory surgical
Now, I should note that I don't have a problem with GMOs in my food, but I do have a problem with the entire corporate situation around them, like farmers not being able to harvest seeds from their own crops or being stopped from harvesting because some GMOs were seeded naturally in their field.
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact. When you instead take the position of suing the government so that you are allowed to hide it, I think you have to admit the optics work directly against you.
No. Either go all the way and make everyone tell what, how and where their products came from, or make none of them do it. To tell people that only certain products have to be mentioned is a double standard which biases people against those products.
Such as? Give me an example of something you would consider analogous to genetic modification that is not required to be labelled, which would constitute a double standard.
Where food comes from, by whom it is built, whether those people are treated fairly, which insect deterrents are used, etc etc.
The term 'genetically modified' is such a nonsensical buzzword. Monsanto is problematic but not for pushing GMOs. If you have ever eaten a yellow ear of corn, eaten a hamburger, or eaten an apple, you have enjoyed a GMO. GMOs created by nice friendly down to earth farmers practicing selective breeding. But if a scientist in a lab coat gets involved and tries to do the same thing in a laboratory and suddenly you have "franken foods". GMO has as much meaning as the term 'organic'
If your position is that there is nothing wrong with GMO foods, then educate people on that fact.
This is my problem with all the food labeling requirements. If you think it would misrepresent your product to include factual information, you have bigger issues.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in here, but there have been several international lawsuits about food labeling. One was with the Mexican government suing the American government over tuna that had dolphin in it. In the US there have historically been concerns with tuna coming with dolphin meat and that violating the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican government sued the American government on behalf of its corporations for WTO violations, saying that labeling the food violated fair trade agreements. The Mexican government won, and now you can't be sure if the tuna you eat has dolphin in it.
For those that may not be aware, genetically modified organisms (hereafter GMO's) are a high controversy in the United States. It's getting a lot of attention... sort of. Recently Vermont drafted a law where food labels are required to list whether their products contain GMO's, and the food industry has responded by suing the State of Vermont on the grounds the law is unconstitutional.
I'm personally more apathetic to the cause than some people, like Neil Young, who's now boycotting Starbucks for supporting the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
Here's some additional information on GMO's:
The Facts about GMO's
10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs
My biggest concern regarding GMO's is their allegedly unchecked nature, but in regards to Neil Young leading this boycott, I'm not sure how far it will get. Thoughts?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
By the way, you might as well remove those two links. Neither of them post any sources whatsoever, and therefore both are perfectly useless.
I'm not sure that you examined the "Facts about GMO" Website. First, it's only sources. It gives almost no information for itself and is mostly a collection of second-hand sources. Second, it takes a more neutral stance than the other link (which while does have sources, is definitely less reliable).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I mouseovered the links in the first block and most were not actual sources, but news sites. You right though. Down further it's more NCBI stuff and other scientific journals.
Teaming up with or agreeing with Monsanto (on basically anything) doesn't help this fact either.
This is my problem with all the food labeling requirements. If you think it would misrepresent your product to include factual information, you have bigger issues.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
No. Either go all the way and make everyone tell what, how and where their products came from, or make none of them do it. To tell people that only certain products have to be mentioned is a double standard which biases people against those products.
Meh. They're not that bad, to be honest.
Such as? Give me an example of something you would consider analogous to genetic modification that is not required to be labelled, which would constitute a double standard.
A few things:
- If you're not keeping track of what is in your product, I don't feel bad for your company, you're negligent.
- Certain things, like 'sugar added' are important for consumers to know.
- Comparing it to bearded men is disingenuous. People have a right to know whats being used in the food they eat. If there is a furvor over using a product, good public relations and public education should be what you tackle, not being honest about what you include in your product.
- Labeling for abortion clinics is wrong for an entirely different set of reasons. What you're referring to is, in some state, abortion clinics being lumped in with freestanding ambulatory surgical
Now, I should note that I don't have a problem with GMOs in my food, but I do have a problem with the entire corporate situation around them, like farmers not being able to harvest seeds from their own crops or being stopped from harvesting because some GMOs were seeded naturally in their field.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Where food comes from, by whom it is built, whether those people are treated fairly, which insect deterrents are used, etc etc.
Next we'll find out that Neil Young isn't involved with the boycott...
I agree with you, but that is just as much of a buzzword.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in here, but there have been several international lawsuits about food labeling. One was with the Mexican government suing the American government over tuna that had dolphin in it. In the US there have historically been concerns with tuna coming with dolphin meat and that violating the Endangered Species Act. The Mexican government sued the American government on behalf of its corporations for WTO violations, saying that labeling the food violated fair trade agreements. The Mexican government won, and now you can't be sure if the tuna you eat has dolphin in it.