|
It is actively harmful, though. There are enough people with food insecurity in this country that we don't need labeling that could potentially make higher-yielding crops unprofitable through stupid people's aversion. It's the same thing with being anti-nuclear, which is honestly worse than being a climate change denier, because you admit that there's a problem but you refuse to do anything about it.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
rear end cobra posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbCwc4d71eQ Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:Except if everyone stops growing "GMO" food because the hippie market doesn't want to buy it and it's just cheaper to make the same thing for the hippies and normal people. When I think of a major and influential purchasing demographic, hippies definitely come to mind. It'll be a niche, pricey market and most people will just not give a gently caress - like organic, gluten-free, or whatever else the fad is. And presumably any crops or livestock using recombinant DNA rather than selective breeding to influence genetics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:GMO labeling is worthless, but it's not an actively bad thing like climate change denial. If enough people in a state want to see that on the label, and some irrational hippies avoid GMO products, who cares? No one is going to ban GMO crops, farmers will continue to grow GMO crops, and people will continue to eat GMO food. On the other than, climate change denial influencing policy decisions leads to inaction on carbon emissions, which actually hurts people. They really aren't the same thing at all except that the motivations for both are ignorant. No, the GMO fear is actually killing people. It's far from innocent when you have Greenpeace activists burning golden rice fields in the third world. Golden rice is a non patented, vitamin A fortified rice given away freely in countries that have rice based diets and could easily curb the leading cause of blindness among children, while also affecting starvation diets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:e: Assuming the labeling isn't something ridiculous like 'GMO: DO NOT EAT' in big red letters on the front. Just make it a parenthetical thing in the ingredients list so people who (irrationally) care can have the information. Except literally everything humans consume is genetically modified. Either through artificial selection, cross-breeding or natural genetic drift. Where do you draw the line? Will we retroactively label all bananas as GMO since we selectively bread banana trees to make bigger and tastier fruit? AreWeDrunkYet posted:When I think of a major and influential purchasing demographic, hippies definitely come to mind. It'll be a niche, pricey market and most people will just not give a gently caress - like organic, gluten-free, or whatever else the fad is. Okay so you admit that you're fine with genetically modified foods, you just don't like one process, despite it giving you the exact same results in less time. Why exactly does it matter if we do recombinant DNA versus selective breeding when the result is the same?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Organic supermarkets didn't make non-organic (inorganic? that doesn't sound right) food unprofitable. I see no reason to believe why GMO labeling (itself more of a niche concern than organic food) is going to. To argue that this problem is on the same scale as climate change denial, with the same consequences, seems like a dangerous underestimation of the problem of climate change. edit: the line is pretty clearly drawn between "husbandry" and "laboratory science" if you ask me. It is not a huge stretch to assume that these two techniques, one of which has been practiced for thousands and thousands of years, and one which has been developed in my lifetime, are understood to different degrees by their practicioners. Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
echronorian posted:The benefits and negatives of free trade are both so far reaching that just outright being against free trade is ignorant. Lol 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Trump would easily be the least worst president out of the Republican stable. Walker is legit dangerous and the country would be in flames by 2020, Bush would just continue his family's legacy of loving up in the Middle East, everyone else is either an empty suit, frighteningly incompetent, or a religious nutjob. I guess Rubio would be more inoffensive than Trump? But Trump has a history of being a moderate, supports healthcare (and, it's implied, wants single-payer and to end the Obamacare blowjob to insurance companies), all that stuff. I think some of you are getting a bit too caught up in his bluster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:It is actively harmful, though. There are enough people with food insecurity in this country that we don't need labeling that could potentially make higher-yielding crops unprofitable through stupid people's aversion. It's the same thing with being anti-nuclear, which is honestly worse than being a climate change denier, because you admit that there's a problem but you refuse to do anything about it. Oh, that reminds me, Sanders is also anti nuclear
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Organic supermarkets didn't make non-organic (inorganic? that doesn't sound right) food unprofitable. I see no reason to believe why GMO labeling (itself more of a niche concern than organic food) is going to. Well since one very, very useful aspect of GMO is reducing crop failure if we started GMO labeling and it lead to people not growing GMO food anymore we could have famines on our hands as crops previously impervious to disease or drought die. If we moved away from GMO it'd be almost impossible to successfully feed everyone. We need the increased yield that GMO gives us. I'd argue a nation or worldwide famine is pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:Okay so you admit that you're fine with genetically modified foods, you just don't like one process, despite it giving you the exact same results in less time. Why exactly does it matter if we do recombinant DNA versus selective breeding when the result is the same? Recombinant DNA produces results that would literally not be possible through selective breeding. All evidence points to that not actually making any difference for the end-product, but I'm also not entirely comfortable with making it impossible for people to find that out about their food if that is the democratic decision of a state's population. e: Also, the speed at which genetic modifications currently take place can lead to some unexpected consequences. For example, pesticide resistant crops led to greater use of pesticides, which in turn led to insects more resistant to those pesticides. This is likely a solvable issue, but it seems like the tone of a lot of people is just "move along, nothing to see here". AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Perhaps we would have less crop failure if we didn't kill all the bees, just sayin'.AreWeDrunkYet posted:Recombinant DNA produces results that would literally not be possible through selective breeding. All evidence points to that not actually making any difference for the end-product, but I'm also not entirely comfortable with making it impossible for people to find that out about their food if that is the democratic decision of a state's population. This is my opinion exactly. The notion that a few plucky hippies are gonna stop Monsanto from doing it's thing and throw in the genetically modified towel is silly. Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Oh, that reminds me, Sanders is also anti nuclear Vermont-Yankee was not the worlds greatest nuclear power plant
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Vermont-Yankee was not the worlds greatest nuclear power plant But was it the yoojest and most luxurious? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Organic supermarkets didn't make non-organic (inorganic? that doesn't sound right) food unprofitable. I see no reason to believe why GMO labeling (itself more of a niche concern than organic food) is going to. It may not be at the same scale, but the question of how we're going to feed 10 billion people while minimizing the strain on the environment is huge, and GMO will have to be part of the answer. Undermining it is not something we should be doing. When you put a label on the food people are going to assume it's there for a reason, and act accordingly. If you don't think people are prone to making ridiculously misinformed food choices I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
A GMO label would be on nearly everything. Every processed product that contains corn syrup likely came from GMO corn. General Mills, Kraft, et. al. would never allow a law like this to pass, because as someone pointed out: axeil posted:After the government mandated labeling food sanitized with radiation as irradiated food everyone refused to buy it, despite it being perfectly safe. As a result, there's no food sanitized with radiation in the US despite it being cheaper and more effective than traditional chemical pesticides. If you think a bag of Oreos with a scary GMO sticker on it is a thing that's going to happen you have very little faith in how much corporate power affects the political process. Either it will never pass or there will be a huge effort to re-educate the American populace, one or the other. Since the first option is cheaper, that's what we'll see for a while, although the second might have to come to pass sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Perhaps we would have less crop failure if we didn't kill all the bees, just sayin'. Who is the 'we' killing bees here? You're also dealing with outdated numbers, beekeepers have seen a 19.8% increase in bee populations the last year, with each year over year being better than the last. Preemptively I'll also point out that countries which don't use glyphosate or neonectoids (spelling?) Have also seen widespread colony collapse disorder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Bananas are radioactive. It's not unhealthy, it's just neat to think about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Who is the 'we' killing bees here? You're also dealing with outdated numbers, beekeepers have seen a 19.8% increase in bee populations the last year, with each year over year being better than the last. Preemptively I'll also point out that countries which don't use glyphosate or neonectoids (spelling?) Have also seen widespread colony collapse disorder. Wait, really? I didn't know that, that's excellent news  The first thing, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
You also can't just have laws requiring labeling in one state because of interstate commerce. GMO labeling is dumb full-stop and will slow scientific progress and literally result in some people starving so that some idiot can avoid a scaring loving word he doesn't even understand. gently caress GMO labeling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
God forbid that companies would need to make the effort to educate their customers about the processes involved in making their products.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Here's Benie's Senate website on GMO labeling. God that poo poo is so embarrassing. I, too, hate selective breeding in agriculture and also reek of patchouli oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
My favorite part of the debate last night was the incredibly awkward opening and Trump being the only one to not take the Fox News purity pledge to not run as an independent. All of the opinions expressed were horrifyingly bad with the lone exception of Kasich's stance on gay marriage which was lukewarm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
GMOs are important to feeding the world, no doubt. But terminator genes and herbicide tolerance is scary poo poo from an ecological perspective - you don't get to control how other plants evolve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:A GMO label would be on nearly everything. Every processed product that contains corn syrup likely came from GMO corn. General Mills, Kraft, et. al. would never allow a law like this to pass, because as someone pointed out: So where was the re-education campaign on the safety of irradiated fruit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Wait, really? I didn't know that, that's excellent news It depends how you look at the numbers. There is still massive die off, but the colonies that survive are split up and thrive at an incredible rate. There is no scientific consensus on what's happening to bees. It's extremely complicated and I think it'd be a relief if it was just one thing, but it's not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Are Fruit Gushers GMO? its the only explanation! how do they make fruits into tiny chewable tablets with juice in them~~
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Here's Benie's Senate website on GMO labeling. It's been said repeatedly, but this has absolutely nothing to do with selective breeding, and everything to do with gene manipulation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
pugnax posted:GMOs are important to feeding the world, no doubt. But terminator genes and herbicide tolerance is scary poo poo from an ecological perspective - you don't get to control how other plants evolve. We've controlled how plants and animals evolve since we figured out we get bigger fruit/vegetables/whatever when we stick the biggest plants together. We also took the wolf and made it into a new species with slavish devotion to us. We've controlled this stuff for centuries. All we're doing now is making it more efficient. pugnax posted:It's been said repeatedly, but this has absolutely nothing to do with selective breeding, and everything to do with gene manipulation. Gene manipulation is just selective breeding accelerated a thousandfold. If you really wanted stuff that isn't naturally occurring you can get if you wait long enough for a random mutation. Sadly it's sort of hard to do that over thousands of generations, so we'll just make the change ourselves instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:God forbid that companies would need to make the effort to educate their customers about the processes involved in making their products. Easier to influence the politicians not to pander to a bunch of idiots who don't understand GMOs outside of stupid Facebook memes, especially when big money is on our side for this one
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
GMO labeling is dumb as hell but it's like the 50th most important issue
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
pugnax posted:It's been said repeatedly, but this has absolutely nothing to do with selective breeding, and everything to do with gene manipulation. It has nothing to do with genetic modification and everything to do with genetic modification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
pugnax posted:GMOs are important to feeding the world, no doubt. But terminator genes and herbicide tolerance is scary poo poo from an ecological perspective - you don't get to control how other plants evolve. Did you mean terminator seeds? Because that's a load of horse poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Without wanting to continue this derail much further, if 64 other countries in the world are also performing GMO labelling, have they experienced negative effects since they started that process? I'm wondering how deleterious it would actually be as I'm kinda mixed on the issue
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
From Bernie Sander's sitequote:The medical community has raised serious health concerns about genetically engineered food. Is this true? What credible medical claims have been made raising concerns about GMOs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
'Selective breeding' is genetic modification with far less control factors. Being pro selective breeding and anti genetic engineering is absolutely silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:GMO labeling is dumb as hell but it's like the 50th most important issue  . Its a little detail to harp on in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Who gives a flying gently caress about what a candidate says about all of these fringe issues really? GMO labeling and  ATOMS are dumb but really far down the list of important things that a president influences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
That article makes it sound like many of the other first world countries are labeling these foods, and it has not yet led to the collapse of the technique yet. As far as the irradiated fruit thing goes, it seems reasonable to be cautious when in the past we have sold things like the Radithor without fully understanding the consequences. Is it completely impossible that there are ramifications we are not yet privy to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:35
|
|