41–50 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before labeling: "Why wouldn't you label it? More information is better!" After labeling: "If GMOs are so safe, then why are they labeled?"
You can't stop people from making presuppositions about life. This is a silly statement since people already question GMO's even without the label. For example: "If Organic is safe, why is it labeled?"
More advertising seems wasted money to me - pro Monsanto people don't matter, anti Monsanto people will only see it as propaganda. Just label GMOs really obviously and let the people decide. Without any labeling or non-obvious labeling it is hard or impossible to avoid GMOs if you want to - for rational reasons or not - and being wholly against GMOs becomes your only real option. There are of course still a lot of ot…
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass o…
I don't understand the anti-labeling group, except perhaps as an obvious lobbying effort by those selling GMO seeds. Giving people accurate information about what they eat seems to be net positive. Most people will buy the cheapest thing, some will buy the non-GMO things. How's that different from today's "organic" labeling?
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…
Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…
Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).
It's been the norm ever since the green revolution (modern hybrids often don't breed true http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/ ).
They are making an economic decision when they buy and plant any crop, and they are good at making it (it's a low margin business).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass o…
80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They fe…
No. Nor should we support their delusions.
> both sides strongly believe to be on the right one
What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They fe…
> Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts .
The problem is that many people are vehemently against GMO without having a clue. I remember of a famous french actress protesting on TV that people were forced to eat GMO. And saying in disgust "It's disgusting, I don't even want to eat DNA!" On GMO and Monsanto I recommand a recent .net rocks: http://dotnetrocks.com/?show=1298
They don't have a clue? Great maybe you could give me a clue on which french actress you're talking about. Vague and nebulous anecdotes drive me crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts .
»Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…
"They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment" Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
»Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.
You can't separate those things.