GMO labeling and consumer scientific knowledge

[Forogil]

There is approximately, 323 Million people, in the US, right now.

To reach a 99% certainty, with a 1% Error margin, on that scale, you'd need a total Sample Size of 16640.

And that is with a 1% Error margin.

Now keep in mind, what you are arguing, is that it's factual. a 0% Error margin.

Pure straw-man, no-one is arguing that.

And more importantly it doesn't change the result - regardless of whether 84% or 80% or 88% believe that DNA in food should be labelled it is a too high amount. (Unless it refers to pure DNA - or large quantities of added DNA - since excessive amounts of DNA is not healthy as far as I recall.)

However, the math is not merely ignorant, but also wrong. The margin of error depends on the result (this is something that many miss; even with basic statistical knowledge.) So for 1000 persons and 99% confidence a result of 50% would be 50%+/-4% but 84% would be 84%+/-3%.

Similarly to get 1% margin of error around 84% you don't need 16640 but only about 9000.

Infracted - do not post to continue a derail when you were specifically informed not to

- - - Updated - - -

Everything is labeled ffs. See no reason why GMO should get a pass when everything else gets labeled.

Everything isn't included on the labels, because that would be ridiculous:



https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/ingredients-of-an-all-natural-egg/

[Kalis]

The US has a huge trade imbalance with the EU. For every $1 we make we send the EU $2. This is essentially welfare.

Surely payment in exchange for goods/services is the opposite of welfare?

[Sargerasraider]

I personally think GMOs wouldn't be an issue if the big companies playing the game were not so damn shady about it. Playing god has always had unforeseen side-effects and I think that's what scares people. I think labeling is a good thing to do. It puts the paranoid at ease and also opens up new markets for "GMO Free" products.

As for the vaccine comment, as far as I was aware it was the preservative that was toxic (mercury derp) not the vaccine itself (Which is an amazing medical breakthrough), which has been taken out from my understanding. I honestly don't know in the end since I don't keep up with it.

Remember folks, asking questions is good, and these sort of things should be scrutinized due to their impact on our health, but making your mind up and ignoring any evidence to the contrary is foolish.

A couple of responses, as your post unfortunately does a reasonably good job explaining how these kind of results come about.

1) Tons of money has been spent by the anti-GMO / pro-organic lobby to demonize GMOs with no scientific evidence backing that up. Your post demonstrates that when you hear some groups harping over and over again "X is bad" "Y is shady", eventually those claims start to be believed.

2) There is -no- evidence of any toxicity from the thimerosal in vaccines. This was another example of certain groups claiming things with zero scientific evidence. You unfortunately show how easy it is to mislead the public with no scientific justification. It also speaks to another issue. When thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines, it was done primarily as a response to non-scientific based concerns rather than any actual evidence. Once it was removed, this is now used itself as evidence that it must have been bad. This is extremely similar to the current GMO labeling issue - if you label as such, it must be evidence of harm.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

Not labeling it doesn't exactly make me trust them, if it's as harmless as they claim it to be, what's the harm in labeling it? Refusing to label it just makes me more suspicious of it, not less.

We shouldn't have to label every arbitrary thing about a product. Let's say I have a delusion that food produced during a full moon will harm me. Do I have the right to demand that food manufacturers label this to satisfy my delusion? If I get a ton of money and a bunch of people to join in my delusion, does that make any difference?

[Forogil]

2) There is -no- evidence of any toxicity from the thimerosal in vaccines. This was another example of certain groups claiming things with zero scientific evidence. You unfortunately show how easy it is to mislead the public with no scientific justification. It also speaks to another issue. When thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines, it was done primarily as a response to non-scientific based concerns rather than any actual evidence. Once it was removed, this is now used itself as evidence that it must have been bad. This is extremely similar to the current GMO labeling issue - if you label as such, it must be evidence of harm.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

The problem with those vaccines (which is not a problem for vaccines in general) is instead believed to be linked to another ingredient (containing parts of shark liver oil, vitamin E and a common food ingredient):
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...lepsy-flu.html
whereas Thimerosal is the one with mercury.

[Deleted]

Everything isn't included on the labels, because that would be ridiculous:

Everything that's used in a product is indeed included on the labels, just because it doesn't break apart the specifics of what eggs are made up of doesn't mean it doesn't say there's eggs in it, if there's eggs.

- - - Updated - - -

We shouldn't have to label every arbitrary thing about a product. Let's say I have a delusion that food produced during a full moon will harm me. Do I have the right to demand that food manufacturers label this to satisfy my delusion? If I get a ton of money and a bunch of people to join in my delusion, does that make any difference?

Why are you so afraid of it being labeled? It's like you people have some kind of phobia about transparency.

[TwistedSkull]

If you want to export to EU then you must abide by their rules. And if that means labeling GMO products so be it. Can't be that hard to be honest.

[Zecora]

Anti-GMO crowd has lots of (prominent) scientists (at least in Europe) who demand further long term independent studies. Anti-vaccine doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the similarity.

Simple, it's a good way to try to ridicule "the opposition" by making a baseless assertion of similarity. Common tactic used by people devoid of any actual arguments.

I've got a ton of aquaintances who oppose GMO's (interestingly enough, very few does so because of the "hysterical fear of health effects" that the GMO fanboys on this site loves to pretend is the only reason to oppose GMO's), yet only one of those is also against vaccination (He feels that the government is too quick to push flu vaccines, he's not one of those "all vaccines are bad people).

Of course, most of those who push GMO's and oppose labelling seem to do so from an unshakeable ideological standpoint of "it's every company's right to make as much profit as possible, and regulation is inherently evil" (apparently people's right to chose NOT to eat or support companies that deal in GMO's is a non-issue to these champions of corporate rights, anti-democracy at its finest), so I doubt that they will care much that their comparison is flawed.

[Frozenbeef]

food containing DNA, which would result in labeling almost all food.

I had to google "what food doesn't have dna"

[Sargerasraider]

Why are you so afraid of it being labeled? It's like you people have some kind of phobia about transparency.

For the same reason every delusional person shouldn't have their delusions satisfied with a label. Again, if I want to lobby that every product made under a full moon be labeled as such, should this be done?

Additionally, if you don't think that people will take a label as some sort of warning, you're either lying or dense.

If you want to export to EU then you must abide by their rules. And if that means labeling GMO products so be it. Can't be that hard to be honest.

We're not arguing over what the laws are. There are plenty of stupid and irrational laws and this is certainly one of them.

[Deleted]

For the same reason every delusional person shouldn't have their delusions satisfied with a label. Again, if I want to lobby that every product made under a full moon be labeled as such, should this be done?

Additionally, if you don't think that people will take a label as some sort of warning, you're either lying or dense.

I don't care if people take it as a warning or not. That's totally irrelevant. Do you personally invest in GMO or something? That's the only rational reason to oppose labeling because you're scared you'll not profit as much if you do that. If you don't invest in it, there's no reason to object to the labeling. And even if you do invest in it, that's no reason to try and shit all over other countries and what they want.

[XangXu]

Has anyone heard of Memphis Meats?

It brings a whole new dynamic to the table...

I'll admit that while I don't have anything AGAINST GMOs, because SCIENCE, that doesn't mean it still creeps me out. I think it is something very human.

[Noradin]

An interesting new study was released looking at popular opinion regarding GMO labeling while also looking at other potential markers of scientific knowledge and results are unfortunately both striking and not surprising:

http://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/news/gmo-knowledge-gap/
80% of people also want a label for "DNA" in their food. Sigh.

Pubmed link for the study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199295

Yes, you can allways make these kinds of surveys.
That is why you inform people then you put out information about the topic, let them think about it, and only then call for a vote.

These kinds of surveys you have presented here are really only a reflection of the fast-talking skills of the ones presenting it on the streets.

[Sargerasraider]

I don't care if people take it as a warning or not. That's totally irrelevant. Do you personally invest in GMO or something? That's the only rational reason to oppose labeling because you're scared you'll not profit as much if you do that. If you don't invest in it, there's no reason to object to the labeling. And even if you do invest in it, that's no reason to try and shit all over other countries and what they want.

Sigh.

I'm going to tell you a story.

Once upon a time, there was a person who knew what was best for others. He knew that foods prepared when the moon was full were bad. As doomsayers are frequently popular with a relatively uneducated population, he soon had many people saying that foods prepared under a full moon were bad. As they gained followers, this group gained more money and influence. They hired people and spent money to get their message out further. Soon, even more people were convinced: foods produced under the full moon were indeed harmful.

There were some who responded saying that there is no rational reason to think that these are harmful, and in fact, foods produced at this time have no discernible differences. Studies were done showing this, and the people who ran the studies were denounced as corporate shills. More studies were done, outside of the food producers also showing no difference. Still, the people who believed the food was harmful were very loud and drowned out the evidence. They demanded labels to know the moon phase the food was produced under. They outright banned it in some areas. They demanded generations of studies showing no effects in offspring of individuals who ate food produced under a full moon. Knowing that it is impossible to prove a negative, they stepped back, smugly.

Replace my example with GMOs, and know why I am against labeling.

[Shadowferal]

If a business products are so good, then it shouldn't have a problem with labeling.

[Kalis]

Replace my example with GMOs, and know why I am against labeling.

Personally I do not care if they label it or not, but your arguments are pretty weak.

If enough people what to know how/where their food is sourced and providing the information is not a problem, which it is not, then there is no harm in legislation covering labelling.

[Canpinter]

I had to google "what food doesn't have dna"

salt, when you think about it its a rock we eat

[minteK917]

salt, when you think about it its a rock we eat

We eat alot of different minerals, they usually arent alone. I mean not alot of people i know eat spoon of salt lol.

[Canpinter]

We eat alot of different minerals, they usually arent alone. I mean not alot of people i know eat spoon of salt lol.

what minerals do you add to food other then salt?

[Deleted]

An interesting new study was released looking at popular opinion regarding GMO labeling while also looking at other potential markers of scientific knowledge and results are unfortunately both striking and not surprising:

http://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/news/gmo-knowledge-gap/



80% of people also want a label for "DNA" in their food. Sigh.

Pubmed link for the study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199295

This is whatcha get with US educational system.
Well, okay, a lot of places are ignorant like this. But such a rich nation as the US should be able to do a lot better than this.

[minteK917]

what minerals do you add to food other then salt?

Sodium is present in food before you add any. You regularly eat iron and magnesium and such. Enriching food with more iron is something we actually do.