Facts and fear about genetically modified food in Hawaii

boing
141

It’s true, many liberals hate Monsanto with the same intensity wingnuts hate Jane Fonda.

And it’s often apparent that the goal is first and foremost to stick it to Monsanto.

For instance, I have sometimes pointed out that if GMOs are so hated and worthless by farmers, why are farmers in many countries stealing GMO seeds?

Then the response is: “Good,that breaks Monsanto’s monopoly!”

To which I say: “Oh wait, all of a sudden you are in favor of unlabeled and completely unregulated GMOs in the food supply, just to spite Monsanto?”

1 Like
142

I’m all in favor of sticking it to big ag companies on the grounds that they’re bastards. I just don’t think GMO labels are a good method :wink:

2 Likes
143

GMO labels shouldn’t have anything to do with “sticking it to big ag companies”, at least in my opinion. That would be a negative, oppositional effort, similar to opposing labeling, and I’ve heard roadblocks were made for bulldozin’.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to seek positive, cooperative actions instead of negative? Increasing the dispersion of human knowledge, educating the public, removing unnecessary externalities from the marketplace, assisting citizen science, decreasing the cost of research, etc… labeling is a social good. That’s well established already. Opposition to labeling is highly suspicious, since labeling has high potential for good and very close to zero potential for harm. GMO companies should be leaping at the opportunity to design informative, useful labels, since advertising sells product if the product is even minimally palatable.

I don’t think economic policy necessarily has to be motivated by fear and hatred, in fact I’m deeply suspicious of those motives because they are so easily manipulated. I find it amazing that anyone pays any attention at all to this whole “we’d lose money because people would distrust a GMO label” crybabying by companies who have already proven they can sell horribly nasty stuff with every foul ingredient listed right there on the label. Have you looked at the ingredients of your soda? Propylene glycol for cryin’ out loud? People don’t seem to be giving up soda because it shares ingredients with antifreeze and industrial lubricants!

If you open the windows and let the sun in, the vampires burn (unless they’re glitter vampires). But my motive is to let the sun in - I simply don’t care if Monsanto and friends burn up.

2 Likes
144

With labeling there is at least a possibility of an informed decision. Without it there is not.

3 Likes
145

Why not start labeling “GMO free!” to tap into this market right now? where’s the invisible hand of the marketplace when we need it?

IMHO, the problem with the labeling proposals is that they are so vague that they represent a jump ball that will be handled by the legal system, because the “experts” on the prolabeling side are professional gadflies rather experts on law, science, IP, or agriculture.

146

So your argument is to simply assume no one at all on the pro-labeling side has any justification for their preferences. Thank you for making so clear the ideological nature of the anti-labeling side of the argument.

2 Likes
147

Ok that was unfair of me to assume they are unqualified. I would be more accurate to say that their work as delivered has been shit, which allows for the possibility that they are qualified but just cynical, lazy, and indifferent.

148

Qualifications are beside the point, dude. The point is that regardless of the state of scientific research on GMO I feel I should be free to avoid them if that is my choice. There’s may be no scientific justification for the labeling. That’s fine. There’s no scientific justification for not labeling either, and there is a pretty good moral argument for labeling. I think the moral argument for labeling trumps the lack of scientific argument for not labeling.

1 Like
149

That doesn’t like a problem that can be helped legislatively

150

Now it sounds like you’re just looking for excuses why GMO shouldn’t be labeled.

It’s not really a problem at all. Just label them and I’ll make the decision for myself. Upthread, Chenille made a nice observation that the FDA already legislates listing ingredients that are added to a food (as opposed to those that occur naturally) and that a similar scheme might be devised for GMO. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

My decision may be ultimately uninformed but I don’t see why anyone except authoritarian technocratic fuckwads would try to prevent me from making that decision for myself.

3 Likes
151

Yeah, this. I know folks who DO go on like that, aye, who doesn’t? But I’m far more alarmed by the actions of the companies involved than GOMs per se.

1 Like
152

Wait, what? I can do genetic engineering by shooting onions? The argument at hand set aside for one moment, this is a splendid thing. Has Grampa Simpson been informed?

2 Likes
153

Glad you brought that up! I see “GMO free” labels all the time. They’re in the supermarkets - more every day - and in fact the “invisible hand” is smacking down hard. GMO advocates o’erweening fear of labels has resulted in driving away consumers, because every soccer mom can see the difference between a seller that will stop at nothing to deny information to buyers and one that shares data openly. GMO free has become a valid branding strategy - not because consumers are afraid of GMOs, but because GMO advocate megacorporations are deathly afraid of labels.

Interestingly enough, the same forces spending billions to prevent labeling of GMOs have repeatedly tried to outlaw the practice of sellers telling consumers what’s not in their products, and I’m surprised you don’t know that. Monsanto, for one, literally wants “GMO free” and “rBGH Free” to be illegal on labels, and has spent huge sums attempting to buy such legislation at both the federal and state levels.

3 Likes
154

In fact, the original “gene gun” used .22 blanks instead of gas, and IIRC they had to be licensed as “guns” in the UK. The fellow who did the original work deserved a lot of credit for going ahead with an idea that was probably loudly ridiculed in the planning stage.

155

I have also seen salt labeled as non-GMO and free of chemicals.

3 Likes
156

I don’t use adblocker (because I track marketing) so now I’m enjoying ads for scams and batshit conspiracy theories peddled to anti-GMO folks as a result of having been in this discussion.

2 Likes
157

Looks like you got “labeled”. Don’t worry, just ask @Medievalist, it’s good for you.

1 Like
158
This sounds a bit too much like what global warning deniers say about the IPCC for my comfort
The IPCC does not equal the EFSA.

Actually, by delving into false equivalence and using that to attack me, you are reminding me very much of the tactics of global warming deniers. Why keep using their tactics and have this discussion degrade into attacks against me personally?

If you have evidence that the EFSA does not have a track record of industry influence, then please provide it. Falsely comparing the EFSA to the IPCC and attacking me doesn’t cut it, sorry.

EFSA conflict of interest issues evidence:

European Food Safety Official Resigns Amidst Conflict of Interest Controversy:
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/european-food-safety-official-resigns-amidst-conflict-interest-controversy

The fact that you accuse me of being like a global warming denier because I’m wary of the EFSA after it’s had clear conflicts of interest with Monsanto, etc. while it was “assessing” the Austrian research says more about you than it does me.

The Austrian scientists were not neutral ... there is a potential for bias to keep in mind

Now you sound exactly like a global warming denier by propping up straw men, etc. There is potential bias within any entity on this planet, not just the gub’mint. You’re being ridiculous.

I’ve asked you for evidence to support your previous accusations against the Austrian scientists and government and you’ve provided nothing.

Sorry, I still need your evidence.

You’ve only proceeded to avoid providing any real evidence and launching even more unsubstantiated accusations in your followup post.

If you don’t have any actual evidence to support your accusations, then please just admit it and let’s move on.

That panel had 21 people with no known conflicts of interest

It’s strange that you’re willing to assume the EFSA has no known conflicts of interest (despite their track record showing the very opposite with industry influence), but at the same time you’re perfectly willing to disregard the Austrian scientists simply because you don’t trust “government”.

Maybe this is more to do about some libertarian leanings or other biases you may have than the actual facts of the issue? I’ve noticed that you’re willing to bend over backwards to defend the GMO industry while dismissing anyone and anything that critiques it (including me).

I also suspect that it was weak due political considerations
Please provide **evidence** for your accusations.

Nowhere have you shown where the Austrian study is weak. Please back up your accusations with evidence beyond hearsay. What made the Austrian study “weak” specifically?

Please, and no more unsubstantiated, government conspiracies.

As for those Nature links, I agree with them 99.99%.
Then I take it that you agree with *Nature* and myself that there needs to be more *independent*, transparent scientific research on GMOs outside of industry? Or, does that happen to be where your small percentage of disagreement lies?

You’ve been avoiding that issue and it’s been the crux of my posts that you’ve been critiquing. Why do you have so much trouble admitting this outright and getting to the crux of my post instead of jumping to constant diversions from it?

His paper was published in International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, a peer-reviewed publication. I don't see any bias,

Ok, but you then go on in your post to basically ignore the substance of the paper and focus on character assassination of Dr. Lotter instead.

You are very much using the old practices of the global warming deniers by trying to distract from points.

My clear point in bringing up the paper was that it shows that there is not the same scientific consensus on GMOs as there is with global climate change.

Do you have evidence to the contrary or would you rather attack Dr. Lotter instead?

Since you can’t provide any evidence that the paper is flawed, you then proceed to employ character assassination on Dr. Lotter.

If you think Dr. Lotter’s paper can’t be relied upon because you (personally) don’t like his past, then why is it OK to take the EFSA at face value that has solid, well-documented evidence against it?

Your blatant bias is showing.

159

Blatant bias against dishonest people?

160

Better not show them the NaCl MSDS! Do they know it’s made of two extremely dangerous elements?

http://www.ch.ntu.edu.tw/~genchem99/msds/exp28/HCl.pdf