WilliamC wrote:What do you think of Jeb Bush? He did a great job in Florida and they love him. His name likely will make you say you hate him.

drsmooth wrote:I'm not sure the guy who winds up saying this is supporting what you imagine is your triumphal position on this issue.

jerseyhoya wrote: I like how he explains the uselessness of labeling GMOs.

Saletan wrote:....we’ve been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public.

The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone—European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors—that we’re ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes.

WilliamC wrote:I will take your word for it. I really don't care.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:bankrupt 4 times if you wish to examine wealth

drsmooth wrote:

WilliamC wrote:I will take your word for it. I really don't care.

I get that

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:part of the issue I am concerned with is that food labeling to date has-

a) been a disaster and extremely confusing for the consumer. Marketers have found all sorts of ways to make their products sound healthier by using words that have no official meaning with the FDA- "All natural" is a perfect example of that. Even cuts of meat is confusing for the customer- with "Prime, choice or select" all three sound wonderful but the difference between a select steak and a prime steak is huge. Also information on labels is often outdated or flat out wrong, how many years did "fat free" snacks get labeled as healthy (and still does) when they contain tons of sugar and sodium?
b) the enforcement of the labels is next to nothing, the FDA and USDA is extremely underfunded to run routine inspections and make sure our food is safe, let alone labelled properly. Just look at last year when herbal supplements sold by GNC and others turned out to be completely devoid of what the product said it was.

the entire system needs an overhaul and more money if you want correct and clear labeling and better safety but the food/agricultural lobby is HUGE and won't let a politician even bring it up

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I like how he explains the uselessness of labeling GMOs.

Pretty sure he feels labels are useless mainly in that they're not education enough about GMOs:

Saletan wrote:....we’ve been stuck in a stupid, wasteful fight over GMOs. On one side is an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science. On the other side are corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing than invest in products that might offend a suspicious public.

The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone—European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors—that we’re ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes.

So can we count on you to advocate for additional teachers at your local public school, or curriculum improvements, or other such educational enhancements as the reporter you're championing insists we must have on this matter?

jerseyhoya wrote:He feels they're useless because they provide no information about the quality/content/production/health of the food you are consuming. In that sense, they aren't educational enough about GMOs or anything else. The second bit you are talking about is a different sort of education. Improving school curricula by telling students to ignore everything Greenpeace says might be a good start.

SK790 wrote:personally shocked that a conservative wants to ignore differing viewpoints w/r/t schooling.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's not so much they have a different viewpoint as it is they're wrong.

Saletan wrote:you come to understand how complicated the truth about GMOs is. First you discover that they aren’t evil. Then you learn that they aren’t perfectly innocent. Then you realize that nothing is perfectly innocent. Pesticide vs. pesticide, technology vs. technology, risk vs. risk— it's all relative

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's not so much they have a different viewpoint as it is they're wrong.

Saletan himself on whether or not "they" are wrong:

Saletan wrote:you come to understand how complicated the truth about GMOs is. First you discover that they aren’t evil. Then you learn that they aren’t perfectly innocent. Then you realize that nothing is perfectly innocent. Pesticide vs. pesticide, technology vs. technology, risk vs. risk— it's all relative

What Saletan's rambling whine further obfuscates is that the resources brought to bear on the various sides of GMO issues are asymmetric. Your obsession is the implacable powers of granola-eaters in raincoats and rowboats to constrain Western man's ability to consume any sort of beans in our burrito bowls (sure, non-GMO will do for now, since Chipotle's pushing it; but what about if/when their ingredients policy "forces" them to impose higher prices?). Others express reservations about taking it for granted that globe-girdling multibillion dollar corporations have nothing but our health and our best interests at heart. There are probably more categories of viewpoints than are dreamt of in Saletan's binary-ish philosophy; they go unaddressed in his canvass of "relativities".

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:personally shocked that a conservative wants to ignore differing viewpoints w/r/t schooling.

It's not so much they have a different viewpoint as it is they're wrong. How do you feel about global warming skeptics being taught in school or creationism alongside evolution?