Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 15:49:18

Soren wrote:
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.

well that's counter intuitive. Why make your crops more pesticide resistant if you intend on using less of them?

Because some modifications make the crops themselves less tasty to bugs. Many plants have "built-in" compounds that make them unappealing to bugs, and one GMO strategy is give other plants that characteristic. Another thing you can do with GMOs is make plants grow faster, require less water, require less fertilizer, etc.

The reality is that wanting to ban GMOs is much like being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. The only difference is that you might have reasons to be concerned about certain abuses of GMOs.

But really, I think you're much better off eating some GMO fruit than eating a boneless chicken breast that comes from a freaky bird bred to have giant breasts and tiny little legs.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 15:50:08

jerseyhoya wrote:
In fact, the only part of the dissent that Breyer and Kagan didn't join was Ginsburg saying corporations could not seek protection under the RFRA. So the idea that corporations can be covered under the law without the clause Indiana includes is a) the law of the United States of America and b) not solely a right wing fantasy.

Volokh's reading of Kagan/Breyer's opt out on Ginsberg was they felt Hobby Lobby was a loser regardless of that aspect of the dissent. In other words, maybe more controversy on the "corporations are peepul!" issue than you imagine

by **phatj** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 15:51:48

Soren wrote:
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.

well that's counter intuitive. Why make your crops more pesticide resistant if you intend on using less of them?

Crops aren't made pesticide-resistant, as pesticides don't usually (directly) affect plants. Some types of GMO corn produce their own pesticide (Bt protein), hence the reduction in external pesticide usage.

I'm surprised at the ambivalent results on herbicide usage though. Herbicide resistance (e.g. Roundup ready) is a major type of GMO and as you point out you'd expect it to result in increased herbicide usage, or else why bother?

by **phatj** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 15:55:35

TenuredVulture wrote:The reality is that wanting to ban GMOs is much like being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. The only difference is that you might have reasons to be concerned about certain abuses of GMOs.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that wanting to ban GMOs is like being a rational irrational person.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 15:58:41

phatj wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:The reality is that wanting to ban GMOs is much like being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. The only difference is that you might have reasons to be concerned about certain abuses of GMOs.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that wanting to ban GMOs is like being a rational irrational person.

There might be specific reasons to worry about specific GMOs, but "the ban GMOs" or "I won't eat GMOs" is a dumb thing to say.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 16:03:30

Crazy ass governor of CT has issued a ban on all state employee travel to Indiana. My guess is pretty much nobody was going there on official bidness anyway, but

by **Bucky** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 16:05:26

TenuredVulture wrote:
phatj wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:The reality is that wanting to ban GMOs is much like being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. The only difference is that you might have reasons to be concerned about certain abuses of GMOs.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that wanting to ban GMOs is like being a rational irrational person.

There might be specific reasons to worry about specific GMOs, but "the ban GMOs" or "I won't eat GMOs" is a dumb thing to say.

the first thing, especially

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 16:30:55

drsmooth wrote:Crazy ass governor of CT has issued a ban on all state employee travel to Indiana. My guess is pretty much nobody was going there on official bidness anyway, but

What happens if UConn gets in trouble with the NCAA? Auriemma going to have to go on his own dime?

by **drsmooth** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 16:53:39

TenuredVulture wrote:
drsmooth wrote:Crazy ass governor of CT has issued a ban on all state employee travel to Indiana. My guess is pretty much nobody was going there on official bidness anyway, but

What happens if UConn gets in trouble with the NCAA? Auriemma going to have to go on his own dime?

pimpin ain't easy

by **SK790** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 17:51:14

JFLNYC wrote:I'm confused. There are many regulations requiring food producers to label their products so that, in a free market, consumers can make an informed choice. Those labeling requirements include both potentially harmful ingredients and benign ingredients. What's the problem with further informing consumers that something for sale is genetically modified so they can make an informed choice based upon the various data?

It'd be incredibly disingenuous to try to avoid informing consumers because public opinion of your product is bad. Thankfully, the great corporations of America would never think of doing such a thing.

Another thing with GMOs is that they end up massively hurting biodiversity since all of these big Ag companies just make 1 or 2 different varieties of the same product and that's it. In Florida, the pest resistant orange plants that are planted everywhere are no longer resistant to the pests that destroy them and it's caused grove owners to panic a bit.

It's better that people don't know what's in their food, though, as long as big Ag companies can keep making millions, it's all worth it!

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 21:34:02

JFLNYC wrote:I'm confused.

Glad we agree on something.

JFLNYC wrote:There are many regulations requiring food producers to label their products so that, in a free market, consumers can make an informed choice. Those labeling requirements include both potentially harmful ingredients and benign ingredients. What's the problem with further informing consumers that something for sale is genetically modified so they can make an informed choice based upon the various data?

There isn't a public health reason to require labeling. It would increase costs unnecessarily and possibly play on unfounded fears. The free market doesn't require nonsense regulations pushed by one portion of an industry looking to stigmatize its competitors. If products want to certify themselves as being non-GMO they can, and if people find that important they can look for products that qualify. But there's no reason for the government to require this labeling.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 21:52:06

jerseyhoya wrote: The free market doesn't require....

How do you know what "the free market" requires?

by **drsmooth** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:01:20

I learned today that the US Senate chamber has a candy desk, and Pat Toomey's is it.

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:04:08

jerseyhoya wrote:There isn't a public health reason to require labeling.

You don't know that. You're guessing. Even if the preponderance of the evidence suggests GMO's are safe, that doesn't mean they are. The complete effects of GMO food -- if any --will likely not be fully known for generations.

jerseyhoya wrote:It would increase costs unnecessarily

Putting a few more words on an existing label increases costs? That's a reach.

jerseyhoya wrote:and possibly play on unfounded fears.

And possibly informs well-founded fears. Again, you don't know that GMO's are safe.

jerseyhoya wrote:If products want to certify themselves as being non-GMO they can, and if people find that important they can look for products that qualify. But there's no reason for the government to require this labeling.

So it's an unnecessary increase in cost for GMO producers to label their products for what they are, but it's no biggie for the rest of the non-GMO world to label their products non-GMO to save costs for the companies who created the issue in the first place.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:27:37

First off, we've been genetically modifying fruits and vegetables for a long time.

Second, GMO's are literally the only way we will be able to feed the world especially if we continue to move froward with disease eradication.

by **pacino** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:29:43

Well, since the 80s, and the 90s is when it blew up

India labels GMO food. It still sells there.

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:35:14

And we've been putting sugar in foods and smoking tobacco for a lot longer. Heck, we even put cocaine into all sorts of things for awhile. All of them were thought to enhance health and well being when they first entered the market. Why does the fact that we've been ingesting something for awhile mean it shouldn't be labeled? If anything, history supports the notion that we don't learn about the true effects of things we ingest for decades, if not longer.

I've got nothing against GMO's. I've ingested them. That's my free choice. But I can't make an informed and free choice unless I know the facts.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:49:25

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:There isn't a public health reason to require labeling.

You don't know that. You're guessing. Even if the preponderance of the evidence suggests GMO's are safe, that doesn't mean they are. The complete effects of GMO food -- if any --will likely not be fully known for generations.

To the extent that we can know anything through observation, testing, research, etc. in a complex world with thousands of intervening variables, we know there's nothing inherently unsafe about GMOs.

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:It would increase costs unnecessarily

Putting a few more words on an existing label increases costs? That's a reach.

Putting a few words on a label wouldn't be the main driver, though it wouldn't be free. There will be compliance costs borne both by consumers and taxpayers, presumably. A division of some agency will be created to monitor GMO percentages in foods and whatnot. Some companies will choose to sub out the slightly cheaper GMO product for a non-GMO product to avoid the label, which will make that product slightly more costly without improving it. We're not talking thousands of dollars a year per person, but even if it's $10 it's still stupid and unnecessary.

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:and possibly play on unfounded fears.

And possibly informs well-founded fears. Again, you don't know that GMO's are safe.

The fears are not well founded. They're based on cherry picking one or two studies out of thousands and/or superstition.

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:If products want to certify themselves as being non-GMO they can, and if people find that important they can look for products that qualify. But there's no reason for the government to require this labeling.

So it's an unnecessary increase in cost for GMO producers to label their products for what they are, but it's no biggie for the rest of the non-GMO world label their products non-GMO to save costs for the companies who created the issue in the first place.

Yes. If a food company wants to market their product as being safer or more natural or whatever to appeal to people who distrust GMOs, they can label their stuff as being GMO free.

by **pacino** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:52:06

Swayed by science

by **SK790** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 22:53:55

jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:There isn't a public health reason to require labeling.

You don't know that. You're guessing. Even if the preponderance of the evidence suggests GMO's are safe, that doesn't mean they are. The complete effects of GMO food -- if any --will likely not be fully known for generations.

To the extent that we can know anything through observation, testing, research, etc. in a complex world with thousands of intervening variables, we know there's nothing inherently unsafe about GMOs.
ignores the point

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:It would increase costs unnecessarily

Putting a few more words on an existing label increases costs? That's a reach.

Putting a few words on a label wouldn't be the main driver, though it wouldn't be free. There will be compliance costs borne both by consumers and taxpayers, presumably. A division of some agency will be created to monitor GMO percentages in foods and whatnot. Some companies will choose to sub out the slightly cheaper GMO product for a non-GMO product to avoid the label, which will make that product slightly more costly without improving it. We're not talking thousands of dollars a year per person, but even if it's $10 it's still stupid and unnecessary.
it's also "stupid" and "unnecessary" to have nutrition facts by this dumb logic.

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:and possibly play on unfounded fears.

And possibly informs well-founded fears. Again, you don't know that GMO's are safe.

The fears are not well founded. They're based on cherry picking one or two studies out of thousands and/or superstition.
so like what cigarette execs were saying in the 50s?

JFLNYC wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:If products want to certify themselves as being non-GMO they can, and if people find that important they can look for products that qualify. But there's no reason for the government to require this labeling.

So it's an unnecessary increase in cost for GMO producers to label their products for what they are, but it's no biggie for the rest of the non-GMO world label their products non-GMO to save costs for the companies who created the issue in the first place.

Yes. If a food company wants to market their product as being safer or more natural or whatever to appeal to people who distrust GMOs, they can label their stuff as being GMO free.
see point 1

Archived

Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)

Re: Repealing and Vetoing Our Way Forward (Politics Thread)