TenuredVulture wrote:Those mountains aren't actually in the town.

Eighty eight percent of scientists polled by the Pew Research Center in January said genetically modified food is generally safe to eat. Only 37 percent of the public shared that view. The movement to require genetically modified food products to be labeled both reflects and exploits this divergence between informed opinion and popular anxiety.

Mandated labeling would deter the purchase of genetically modified (GM) food when the evidence calls for no such caution. Congress is right to be moving toward a more sensible policy that allows companies to label products as free of GM ingredients but preempts states from requiring such labels.

Lawmakers and voters in some states have considered requiring GM labeling, but only a few have chosen to label, and none have yet started. That’s good: The GM-food debate is a classic example of activists overstating risk based on fear of what might be unknown and on a distrust of corporations. People have been inducing genetic mutations in crops all sorts of other ways for a long time — by, for example, bathing plants in chemicals or exposing them to radiation. There is also all sorts of genetic turbulence in traditional selective plant breeding and constant natural genetic variation.

pacino wrote:jh, siding with scientists, eh?

pacino wrote:jh, siding with scientists, eh?

If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.


The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh, siding with scientists, eh?

Science is not the end of an argument when it comes to public policy. In this case, science informs us that GMOs are likely no different safety wise from non GMO foods. This, combined with the public opinion information, means rather than mandatory labeling being informative, it will confuse things further and provide no important positive role.

jerseyhoya wrote:Concise Washington Post Editorial against GMO labeling

Eighty eight percent of scientists polled by the Pew Research Center in January said genetically modified food is generally safe to eat. Only 37 percent of the public shared that view.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:so jerz, this article explains why the Indy law is different than the Federal RFRA and almost all other state RFRA's except Texas and South Carolina. Still wish to contend this is getting overblown?


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-mak ... 98311.html

a few snips

If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.


The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

also the "religious leaders" who surrounded Pence at the signing (and really they're lobbyists), quite the gay hating group

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:so jerz, this article explains why the Indy law is different than the Federal RFRA and almost all other state RFRA's except Texas and South Carolina. Still wish to contend this is getting overblown?

phatj wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Concise Washington Post Editorial against GMO labeling

Eighty eight percent of scientists polled by the Pew Research Center in January said genetically modified food is generally safe to eat. Only 37 percent of the public shared that view.

The weasel word "generally" is not very comforting.

Also, I wonder whether the scientific community and general public might tend to interpret the question differently. In other words, the scientists might consider whether genetic modification in and of itself would make food unsafe, whereas the public might be more concerned with the end product (which has gone through the entire big ag process).

Roundup ready corn, cultivated without use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides etc., might well be harmless. But the whole point of the stuff is that it can be liberally doused with Roundup to prevent weeds. And I have my doubts that Roundup-laced corn is good for you.

For that matter, the question of what constitutes "safe to eat" is not simple. Chronic toxicity can be difficult (not to mention taking many years) to establish.

Soren wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh, siding with scientists, eh?

Science is not the end of an argument when it comes to public policy. In this case, science informs us that GMOs are likely no different safety wise from non GMO foods. This, combined with the public opinion information, means rather than mandatory labeling being informative, it will confuse things further and provide no important positive role.

Exactly right. GMOs are completely safe to eat but they allow for increased usage of herbicide/pesticides which is bad mmkay. Plus, Monsanto evil blahblahblah

jerseyhoya wrote:

Soren wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh, siding with scientists, eh?

Science is not the end of an argument when it comes to public policy. In this case, science informs us that GMOs are likely no different safety wise from non GMO foods. This, combined with the public opinion information, means rather than mandatory labeling being informative, it will confuse things further and provide no important positive role.

Exactly right. GMOs are completely safe to eat but they allow for increased usage of herbicide/pesticides which is bad mmkay. Plus, Monsanto evil blahblahblah

A recent meta analysis of 147 studies that have looked into the question of herbicide/pesticide usage found an average effect of a decrease of 37% in pesticides, while the evidence on herbicide usage is more mixed.