Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Noradin]

It's entirely true that people don't have any duty to educate themselves about topics. Rational ignorance is a perfectly good strategy for most topics and it's a perfectly good way to go through life. We all exercise it on the majority of topics. I have absolutely no idea about the economics of classical music, the best ways to store and/or disassemble old nuclear weapons, best practices for treating acute myeloid leukemia, and so on and so forth.

The thing is, I don't go around lobbying and making demands on these topics. I don't know anything about treating AML, so I don't go around making demands about what treatments hospitals are allowed to use. I trust the experts to handle the matter. On GMOs, for some reason, people that don't know the first thing about the biology or economics of the matter have strong feelings about the topic and think their feelings should be government policy.

I have explained my reasoning behind supporting those labels.
(I'm not running around lobbying, though, just answering with my opinion where such things are discussed on this forum.)
That reasoning is not complicated in any form, and it needs no scientific knowledge about GMO. (We have specialist for that part.)
Look at this post:

I think the fucking problem isn't the fucking fact that GMO's are under scrutiny for any sort of reasons, including made up ones.

The fucking problem is they won't even tell us what's GMO, and their only real answer against letting us know is "Then you won't eat it." Like I'm not an adult.

I'm going to shit on GMO supported forever until they tell us the real reason they don't want us to know which foods are GMO. That's why there's an unending argument here. And as far as I know, there isn't even really a reason, not even the then you won't eat it one, they just won't tell us, for some reason.

That tactic deserves to be treated poorly. It's only logical to hate on something for being so cloistered in the modern age, especially while the rest of us surrender all our privacy.

And tell me you do not think there are many people who will think like this.

How do you propose we resolve this?
By lying? By tricking them into eating it anyway? Sneaking those products in?
That would be excatly what is expected, it will lead to conspiracy theories and the like, we have seen it all before.

No, what we should do is lable all those products, point out that they are GMO and still fine to sell (if they were dangerouns they would get banned after all and not show up at all). Let other people do the convincing that they are fine to use, bring some advertisments.
Even the neutral customers rights groups will jump on it and discuss the topic.

And do you know what is the best part about this?
If someone comes out and slanders these products. Lies about them being dangerous? Then we can sue them for it.
This is Europe. The burden of poof is on the one badmouthing the products, not the other way around.
No "freedom to spread lies".

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I have a litmus test for determining if I should panic over someone's 1st world problems weather it be vaccines, global warming, GMOs or the latest pandemic threatening to kill us all. I simply ask, are more people killed by this than the flu in a year? If the answer is no, I have zero fucks to give.

[Spectral]

I have explained my reasoning behind supporting those labels.
(I'm not running around lobbying, though, just answering with my opinion where such things are discussed on this forum.)
That reasoning is not complicated in any form, and it needs no scientific knowledge about GMO. (We have specialist for that part.)
Look at this post:

And tell me you do not think there are many people who will think like this.

I think I've address this as well - there are significant costs associated with new regulatory regimes. We should have a good reason to implement them, not just people who aren't actually informed about the topic saying, "I've got a bad feeling about this".

As you correctly note, public choice is such that people can demand that and can get their way. It's just a bad idea.

[Deleted]

I think I've address this as well - there are significant costs associated with new regulatory regimes. We should have a good reason to implement them, not just people who aren't actually informed about the topic saying, "I've got a bad feeling about this".

As you correctly note, public choice is such that people can demand that and can get their way. It's just a bad idea.

"you're either pro or ignorant" Claim n. 15

We're stepping out of science and into dogma.

[Noradin]

Why do you think the domestication of fruits and vegetables brought no benefit to people? It absolutely did.

Irrelevant.
Wether it is beneficial or not or dangerous or not is irrelevant to this kind of labeling rule.

If it were dangerous it would get banned, no label necessary at all because nobody gets to see it anyway.
If we didn't think it was beneficial we wouldn't do it, it would not exist. Thus irrelevant.

This is about people believing big corporations want to sneak them products they do not want for profit. Believing they need to sneak because there is something wrong with those products. Because why would they need to be underhanded if everything was fine? (That last one is a fallancy, but a common one.)
Thus if we do not label them after all this attention there will be suspicion, it will lead to theories, which will turn into conspiracy theories. And then we might get a movement like the anti-vaxxers.

So cut to the chase and start being open and educational now.
There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO products, we do not have anything to fear when people start digging unless we hide something unsavory for them to find.

[Independent voter]

Damn Dajil, it's been 2 days and you're still bumping this thread? Don't you sleep?

[Deleted]

Damn Dajil, it's been 2 days and you're still bumping this thread? Don't you sleep?

How is this gentleman able to post?

[Noradin]

I think I've address this as well - there are significant costs associated with new regulatory regimes. We should have a good reason to implement them, not just people who aren't actually informed about the topic saying, "I've got a bad feeling about this".

As you correctly note, public choice is such that people can demand that and can get their way. It's just a bad idea.

Yes there are cost, but I think they will be lower if we act now than when we let this get to a head.
It might even serve as an example to point to if the public ever asks for such lables again.
"See how much that last one cost us and how it turned out nothing?"

I would be perfectly alright with lots of lables reading "might contain GMO", that would just up the number of products with the lable even more deadening the buzzword that much faster, and those cost just inc.

Also, better do this now, before the market is more open to foods from outside Europe, that way we keep the backlash smaller.

- - - Updated - - -

How is this gentleman able to post?

That is an automaton that bumps threads while he himself sleeps. see how he offers nothing of meaning nor even anything that indicates awareness of the topic?

[Nadiru]

Irrelevant.
Wether it is beneficial or not or dangerous or not is irrelevant to this kind of labeling rule.

If it were dangerous it would get banned, no label necessary at all because nobody gets to see it anyway.
If we didn't think it was beneficial we wouldn't do it, it would not exist. Thus irrelevant.

This is about people believing big corporations want to sneak them products they do not want for profit. Believing they need to sneak because there is something wrong with those products. Because why would they need to be underhanded if everything was fine? (That last one is a fallancy, but a common one.)
Thus if we do not label them after all this attention there will be suspicion, it will lead to theories, which will turn into conspiracy theories. And then we might get a movement like the anti-vaxxers.

So cut to the chase and start being open and educational now.
There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO products, we do not have anything to fear when people start digging unless we hide something unsavory for them to find.

Then "GMO-Free" becomes the new "Organic": a label which means nothing because all foods have been genetically modified, even if they were grown with methods dating back to the Romans.

[Noradin]

Then "GMO-Free" becomes the new "Organic": a label which means nothing because all foods have been genetically modified, even if they were grown with methods dating back to the Romans.

Again you pretend that GMO and crossbreeding are the same thing.
They aren't otherwise there GMO would offer no benefits.

But yes, "organic" means almost nothing, because the rules are too lax (if there are any at all), which is something that should change.
How could one make a meaningful lable? By setting mandantory rules about it. At least then you get a definition and a checklist.

[Deleted]

Again you pretend that GMO and crossbreeding are the same thing.
They aren't otherwise there GMO would offer no benefits.

But yes, "organic" means almost nothing, because the rules are too lax (if there are any at all), which is something that should change.
How could one make a meaningful lable? By setting mandantory rules about it. At least then you get a definition and a checklist.

Yeah but no sorry. It would be costly to taxpayers ahahah

[Noradin]

Yeah but no sorry. It would be costly to taxpayers ahahah

Changing the rules fot the "organic" lable?
Not necessarily, it would be costly for those who want those products, because it is the one who wants the certificate who is made to pay for it and then hands that price tag to the consumer.

Same for the other lable.

[Gilgemesh]

I have a hard time believing that all things that are bad for our health are as bad as they say they are...when one eats in moderation.
GMO's are definitely at the very very bottom of my concerns for a healthy population. Heavily processed foods being cheaper than raw unprocessed vegetables and cuts of meat concerns me. The amount of sugar in everything concerns me.

I'm afraid, with the way our population is exploding, it's going to take some crazy genetic modification of staple foods just to keep us all fed in the future.

[Deleted]

Changing the rules fot the "organic" lable?
Not necessarily, it would be costly for those who want those products, because it is the one who wants the certificate who is made to pay for it and then hands that price tag to the consumer.

Same for the other lable.

I was making fun of Spectral's point of GMO labeling being expensive to taxpayers so we shouldnt do it.

[Forogil]

Read my posts againg, there are three speperate issues:

1) Is GMO save to use? It is not inherently unsave. It needs case to case tests just like all other new products. It offers more drastic changes than, say, crossbreeding, thus we need to extend some extra awareness towards possible unexpected results.

It just offers more predictable and faster changes than crossbreeding, and cross-breeding needs zero tests. Using tests to guard a market is a well-known tactic, and then we see the real reason:

3) European agriculture. I do not think it would be ideal to just open our markets in this area and swamp them with cheap produce when we already labour to artificially keep our prices up enough to sustain the farmers we need to keep our landscape the way it is today.

Farmers want that, but most have less than zero interest in that. Walking around in a forest is more relaxing.

[May90]

Well, you are what you eat. Foods people consume affect their biology, no doubt, and my main concern about GMO is the seedless foods. I think GMO which are modified to be sterile also sterilize animals who eat them over time, including humans. However that's just my opinion and here are some articles you can check out to form your own.

http://www.academia.edu/3138607/Morp...Corn_Ajeeb_YG_
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240732/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314908/

Well, these articles are about specific agents, not GMOs in general, as I understand. I seeeeeriously doubt that sterile foods sterilize animals, since we've had a lot of sterile sorts of food and none of them has been known to cause anything like this.

I just don't quite understand how GMOs principally differ from our regular food, apart from the method. The result is pretty much the same, no?

[Osmeric]

I wonder what the anti-GMO people are going to do when CRISPR takes off. It can make pinpoint changes to DNA that are indistinguishable from ordinary mutations. How do you exclude CRISPR-derived foods when you can't detect them?

I also wonder how they'll react to Monsanto's RNAI technology (where kilograms of interfering RNA gets sprayed on fields to turn off expression of specific genes, for example herbicide resistance genes in weeds.)

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

snip

You STILL haven't answered my question. Why do YOU want labels?