I never said I was anti gmo or preferred non gmo food.
I just don't automatically look down on those that would prefer non gmo food.
I don't agree with Sanders trying to say that GMO food is suspect or scary.
The actual labeling thereof I don't see as inherently sinister. Mostly because it's unnecessary. As was mentioned companies have made non-gmo products their market.
The problem is when you make these labels mandatory, despite the fact that it serves no real purpose. It's the very definition of a burdensome regulation that only exists for the sake of shaming people.
It's the food equivalent of when republicans demand that abortion patients subject themselves to an ultrasound that serves no real medical purpose. "Oh, it's not a big deal, because you can always choose to look away!"
If you're going to require that people include a label on their food against their will, then you need a damned good explanation on why it's actually necessary. Normally, coming up with an explanation isn't a problem, because most safety regulations on the books are fairly reasonable. But that isn't the case with GMOs.
I never said I was anti gmo or preferred non gmo food.
I just don't automatically look down on those that would prefer non gmo food.
I don't agree with Sanders trying to say that GMO food is suspect or scary.
The actual labeling thereof I don't see as inherently sinister. Mostly because it's unnecessary. As was mentioned companies have made non-gmo products their market.
I disagree. Labeling implies that there is some danger or need for a label. It's the same logic and argument used to imply that "organic" foods are better for you.
I never said I was anti gmo or preferred non gmo food.
I just don't automatically look down on those that would prefer non gmo food.
I don't agree with Sanders trying to say that GMO food is suspect or scary.
The actual labeling thereof I don't see as inherently sinister. Mostly because it's unnecessary. As was mentioned companies have made non-gmo products their market.
Because you refusing to recognize what the act of labeling does. It isn't just "hey here's some information, citizen!"
If you look at the fact that we only label things (in a mandatory way) when there is a compelling reason to do so (typically the interest is public health), it says that GMO foods are a matter of public health.
Which they aren't, and by communicating that they are, it lends credence to a set of beliefs that are epistemically irresponsible.
So either you need to maintain that reinforcing these irresponsible beliefs isn't bad, that the label doesn't in fact reinforce such beliefs (which you need an argument for, and you haven't given one), or that we ought to or do mandate labels for reasons other than public health (also requiring an argument, which you haven't given)
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
But how else will Bernie ensure that people can take a hard look at GMOs?
Even if GMO fears were somewhere valid, it's still such a minor concern compared to everything else he should have focused on. It's a pet issue for people bathing in luxuries, not a concern for the majority of the nation that can't afford to get everything from Whole Foods.
this whole argument strikes me as kind of uselessly meta
it is normal, as a voter, to want to know what clinton's positions are w/r/t the financial institutions she will have a role in regulating. It is normal to want to know what she said in the speeches she gave to them. It is not unreasonable to make the assumption that receiving large speaking fees from those institutions implies some friendliness to their interests (they weren't paying sen. warren to give talks at their events after all.) You can say that without also implying that these speaking fees represent a quid pro arrangement.
the idea that a candidates' associations aren't acceptable points of discussion (or even more ridiculous, that they don't matter at all) is also silly. These are people whose advice will be solicited, who will be hired and appointed to government positions when the candidate is elected. Not paying attention to politicians' associations is how a bunch of people wind up surprised when Obama appoints Larry fucking Summers to head the NEC
it is entirely acceptable, as a candidate running in an election, to raise similar issues in the course of talking about your opponent. You can't run for office without necessarily explaining why you are a better option than your opposition, and discussing the opposition's negative features is a part of that. You only arrive at the position that it wasn't acceptable for Sanders to do so by beginning with the proposition (as some in this thread have done) that he had no right to run against Clinton in the first place and that therefore any harm he did to her campaign is unjustifiably injurious.
In courts, we don't allow evidence or testimony whose probative value is obviously outweighed by its prejudicial value. This line of reasoning is why the speeches are a goosey subject for sanders or the republicans to harp on, even if a critical thinker can come to the conclusion that they don't like the fact that she made those speeches. Most people are not so reasoned, and in fact think that these acts represent some kind of criminal malfeasance or blatant corruption.
cmon man, this is fucking laughable
the issue either has merit to it, or doesn't. You can't on the one hand say that it does, and on the other say that we shouldn't talk about it because a bunch of wackos are also talking about it. Any criticism of any candidate can be dressed up as the wailing of a bunch of partisans.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
also the problem with GMO labeling is that it's become a proxy for a bunch of issues that are a lot more complicated to talk about, and so leftist politicians feel the need to support it as a way of signaling the constituency(s) that care about them
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I never said I was anti gmo or preferred non gmo food.
I just don't automatically look down on those that would prefer non gmo food.
I don't agree with Sanders trying to say that GMO food is suspect or scary.
The actual labeling thereof I don't see as inherently sinister. Mostly because it's unnecessary. As was mentioned companies have made non-gmo products their market.
The reason it's inherently sinister is because by forcing the labeling you're implying there's something wrong with it that people NEED to be informed about.
There's not. At all.
If a company wants to prove that their product is completely Non-GMO and label as such then fine, whatever. But you shouldn't be forced to label a potential marketing negative when there's not any risk whatsoever involved.
+1
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
There are reasons to be, in some sense, "anti-GMO" that aren't anti-science. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've read editorials from actual scientists alleging that GMO crops are not adequately regulated to prevent cross-fertilization with both wild plants and other domesticated crops, and that current industrial practice is negligent in this regard, with corresponding risks to contamination of the environment. I'm pretty sure the biologist I read making that critique wasn't anti-science in any interesting sense though.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
also the problem with GMO labeling is that it's become a proxy for a bunch of issues that are a lot more complicated to talk about, and so leftist politicians feel the need to support it as a way of signaling the constituency(s) that care about them
Yeah its just a proxy war on Monsanto and if Monsanto is what we care about then let's regulate that and reform all our ip laws
But how else will Bernie ensure that people can take a hard look at GMOs?
Even if GMO fears were somewhere valid, it's still such a minor concern compared to everything else he should have focused on. It's a pet issue for people bathing in luxuries, not a concern for the majority of the nation that can't afford to get everything from Whole Foods.
That's another point:
The entire GMO debate is an extreme example of classism.
Which is really ironic for the socialist candidate.
I know lots of poor people who worry about GMO food, but they sure as heck can't afford the alternative. And it's extremely irresponsible to encourage them to worry about something that they can't change that doesn't actually do any harm.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
The downside is that you give safety regulations a bad name when you put them on things that aren't actually unsafe.
There are people who mock peanut butter labels for having a warning that the problem contains peanuts. I have no problem with this, however: The difference between peanut products and non-peanut products are clear, allergens present a real medical danger, and it's silly to draw the line simply because the inclusion of peanuts is seen as too "obvious" to mention.
The GMO labeling requirement is essentially, "Warning: Product contains DNA." Which is just dumb. And it makes other warning labels look dumb by association.
this whole argument strikes me as kind of uselessly meta
it is normal, as a voter, to want to know what clinton's positions are w/r/t the financial institutions she will have a role in regulating. It is normal to want to know what she said in the speeches she gave to them. It is not unreasonable to make the assumption that receiving large speaking fees from those institutions implies some friendliness to their interests (they weren't paying sen. warren to give talks at their events after all.) You can say that without also implying that these speaking fees represent a quid pro arrangement.
the idea that a candidates' associations aren't acceptable points of discussion (or even more ridiculous, that they don't matter at all) is also silly. These are people whose advice will be solicited, who will be hired and appointed to government positions when the candidate is elected. Not paying attention to politicians' associations is how a bunch of people wind up surprised when Obama appoints Larry fucking Summers to head the NEC
it is entirely acceptable, as a candidate running in an election, to raise similar issues in the course of talking about your opponent. You can't run for office without necessarily explaining why you are a better option than your opposition, and discussing the opposition's negative features is a part of that. You only arrive at the position that it wasn't acceptable for Sanders to do so by beginning with the proposition (as some in this thread have done) that he had no right to run against Clinton in the first place and that therefore any harm he did to her campaign is unjustifiably injurious.
In courts, we don't allow evidence or testimony whose probative value is obviously outweighed by its prejudicial value. This line of reasoning is why the speeches are a goosey subject for sanders or the republicans to harp on, even if a critical thinker can come to the conclusion that they don't like the fact that she made those speeches. Most people are not so reasoned, and in fact think that these acts represent some kind of criminal malfeasance or blatant corruption.
cmon man, this is fucking laughable
the issue either has merit to it, or doesn't. You can't on the one hand say that it does, and on the other say that we shouldn't talk about it because a bunch of wackos are also talking about it. Any criticism of any candidate can be dressed up as the wailing of a bunch of partisans.
You are right in that I didn't phrase my objection properly.
One should not talk about it in a way that is purposefully inflammatory, prejudicial, or obscuring of facts in a manner that will play off of people's biases. If a candidate wants to fully state their objection to the speeches in a fair-minded way that openly and honestly discusses the matter and gives their complete opinion, along with exact claims of what you find objectionable about the behavior, that's fine.
For example, something like "How can Hillary regulate Wall Street when she's getting paid enormous sums by them for speeches?" should not be said, IMO, unless you actually believe and are willing to unequivocally state that Hillary is willing to do whatever the investment banking industry wants with regards to future regulations. Saying the above with the option of later falling back to "well, I didn't mean that she is taking quid pro quo bribes, I'm just saying it makes me uncomfortable and I wish we lived in a society where moneyed networks weren't so pervasive," is bullshit. If you need to leave yourself wiggle room to fall back to a weaker claim than the one you are currently insinuating, then what you are saying is purposefully intended to mislead your audience.
I said the same thing when Hillary made similar statements about Bernie's tax documents. That shit has no place in civil discourse.
If there is nothing nefarious about the speeches, why is it bad to make them?
And are speeches alone bad, or just the ones to Wallstreet?
Because it's shitty politics!
1) Person X is paid immense amounts of money, more than the average American will make in a year, to give a speech to the group
2) Normal people are like "wait, no one is that good a speaker, clearly something else is going on here" (they're correct; it's mostly ego stroking in reality)
3) Therefore giving these kinds of paid speeches, especially to groups who are notorious for trying to influence the government, when you know you are about to run for President is stupid. Not illegal, not even necessarily immoral, just stupid.
4) Special bonus: when you have a pre-existing weakness, which was repeatedly demonstrated the last time you run for President, for being "dishonest." Don't walk into your vulnerabilities.
If this is the actual objection then why do the complaints in here seem to almost entirely centre around who she gave the speech to and implications of influence rather then it just being an example of the Clinton's tendency to shoot themselves in the foot for no discernible reason?
Like, I'm not sure you'd really find many people who would disagree that it was bad optics for her future political ambitions. But that does not seem to be that actual substance of the objections. Either raised by Sanders or in this thread from what I've seen.
But how else will Bernie ensure that people can take a hard look at GMOs?
Even if GMO fears were somewhere valid, it's still such a minor concern compared to everything else he should have focused on. It's a pet issue for people bathing in luxuries, not a concern for the majority of the nation that can't afford to get everything from Whole Foods.
That's another point:
The entire GMO debate is an extreme example of classism.
Which is really ironic for the socialist candidate.
I know lots of poor people who worry about GMO food, but they sure as heck can't afford the alternative. And it's extremely irresponsible to encourage them to worry about something that they can't change that doesn't actually do any harm.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
The downside is that you give safety regulations a bad name when you put them on things that aren't actually unsafe.
There are people who mock peanut butter labels for having a warning that the problem contains peanuts. I have no problem with this, however: The difference between peanut products and non-peanut products are clear, allergens present a real medical danger, and it's silly to draw the line simply because the inclusion of peanuts is seen as too "obvious" to mention.
The GMO labeling requirement is essentially, "Warning: Product contains DNA." Which is just dumb. And it makes other warning labels look dumb by association.
Safety regulations should be regulated. Sell by dates are pretty unregulated and result in massive food waste. There is an element of genetic modification of food that should be regulated... somehow. I wouldn't put it on a label, but I would make FDA requirements stringent for a mass produced product, and additionally make an ethics investigation a part of the approval process.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There are reasons to be, in some sense, "anti-GMO" that aren't anti-science. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've read editorials from actual scientists alleging that GMO crops are not adequately regulated to prevent cross-fertilization with both wild plants and other domesticated crops, and that current industrial practice is negligent in this regard, with corresponding risks to contamination of the environment. I'm pretty sure the biologist I read making that critique wasn't anti-science in any interesting sense though.
Sure, but this isn't really related to the whole "GMO labelling" proposals, since they don't actually tackle that aspect of the issue.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
I suspect it's either, as you say, a way to pander to certain aspects of the political left that are into this bullshit or that Sanders is actually part of that group himself. Neither would really seem shocking to me.
Either way it's dumb and I wish he wasn't giving it any support.
shryke on
+1
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Either the label has meaning, in which case the government is pathologizing GMO foods; or the label is meaningless, in which case its existence degrades the perceived validity and usefulness of all the other labels. It's hard enough trying to get people to pay attention to nutrition labels and the real ways that the government tries to help people be aware of safety and other food issues without crufting up the packaging of all food everywhere with purposeless bullshit. It's basically security theater, and the government has no business doing that whether it's in an airport or a supermarket aisle.
Either the label has meaning, in which case the government is pathologizing GMO foods; or the label is meaningless, in which case its existence degrades the perceived validity and usefulness of all the other labels. It's hard enough trying to get people to pay attention to nutrition labels and the real ways that the government tries to help people be aware of safety and other food issues without crufting up the packaging of all food everywhere with purposeless bullshit. It's basically security theater, and the government has no business doing that whether it's in an airport or a supermarket aisle.
It's funny you say that, because Walmart is trying to force their suppliers to at least be consistent on the terminology. If I had to guess, it probably makes it easier for them to pull food from the shelves. "Best if used by" was Walmart's choice.
There are reasons to be, in some sense, "anti-GMO" that aren't anti-science. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've read editorials from actual scientists alleging that GMO crops are not adequately regulated to prevent cross-fertilization with both wild plants and other domesticated crops, and that current industrial practice is negligent in this regard, with corresponding risks to contamination of the environment. I'm pretty sure the biologist I read making that critique wasn't anti-science in any interesting sense though.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Label them GLO: Genetically Licensed Organisms. Cause that practice is ridiculous
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+3
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
There are reasons to be, in some sense, "anti-GMO" that aren't anti-science. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've read editorials from actual scientists alleging that GMO crops are not adequately regulated to prevent cross-fertilization with both wild plants and other domesticated crops, and that current industrial practice is negligent in this regard, with corresponding risks to contamination of the environment. I'm pretty sure the biologist I read making that critique wasn't anti-science in any interesting sense though.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Yes, but the corporate jerkoffery of Monsanto and its peers has nothing to do with that labeling.
Used to be for GMO labels.
Then i learned just how stupid people can be about this shit (and everytime i think i've found the bottom, someone opens a secret door to a deeper cavern).
And i guess i'm sortof opposed, for practical reasons.
As I pointed out to the other poster with the same idea; salt (specifically NaCl) is hellaciously poisonous in any concentration at all.
... any concentration?
Please tell me you aren't serious; and if you are, please be more rigorous with your terms.
Sorry, I was speaking colloquially.
"In any concentration" is meant as "in concentrations high enough to be notable" or something thereby similar.
Obviously humans can consume extremely limited amounts of table salt without dying. As we can many other things that will kill us in higher concentrations.
As I pointed out to the other poster with the same idea; salt (specifically NaCl) is hellaciously poisonous in any concentration at all.
... any concentration?
Please tell me you aren't serious; and if you are, please be more rigorous with your terms.
Sorry, I was speaking colloquially.
"In any concentration" is meant as "in concentrations high enough to be notable" or something thereby similar.
Obviously humans can consume extremely limited amounts of table salt without dying. As we can many other things that will kill us in higher concentrations.
Again, what concentrations in particular do you mean?
Because life as we know it would not exist without salt, and I think you are vastly overstating your case.
I mean, by that measure, both water and oxygen are fantastically scary. (The former is close to a universal solvent, and the latter is extremely corrosive and causes other things to burst into flame!) We just don't notice because we're made out of them.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Turns out that a vast, vast majority of farmers already buy seeds seasonally anyway. That's just more scaremongering. Very, very few farmers reseed from the same crops on any massive scale.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Turns out that a vast, vast majority of farmers already buy seeds seasonally anyway. That's just more scaremongering. Very, very few farmers reseed from the same crops on any massive scale.
And, as far as I know, Monsanto has never sued a farmer when some of their seeds blew into an adjacent field.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Turns out that a vast, vast majority of farmers already buy seeds seasonally anyway. That's just more scaremongering. Very, very few farmers reseed from the same crops on any massive scale.
And, as far as I know, Monsanto has never sued a farmer when some of their seeds blew into an adjacent field.
Never accidentally. There have been cases where they have sued farmers who have intentionally cultivated Round Up resistant strains from cross pollination. And in fact, one of the cases involved a settlement which legally prohibits them from suing over accidental contamination!
It's almost like this whole thing was already addressed in court and no one wants to acknowledge it.
I think we've all learned a lesson tonight about why it's important to get all speakers to endorse before they are given a speaking slot
Especially if they're young renegades making calculations about their future, but I don't really know what it has do with Bernie.
Only in the sense that people had previously been discussing whether or not Bernie would get a speaking slot if he didn't endorse before the convention.
I don't think that Bernie would have done anything close to this in a million years. But tonight was a clear example of why this rule of thumb exists
Posts
The problem is when you make these labels mandatory, despite the fact that it serves no real purpose. It's the very definition of a burdensome regulation that only exists for the sake of shaming people.
It's the food equivalent of when republicans demand that abortion patients subject themselves to an ultrasound that serves no real medical purpose. "Oh, it's not a big deal, because you can always choose to look away!"
If you're going to require that people include a label on their food against their will, then you need a damned good explanation on why it's actually necessary. Normally, coming up with an explanation isn't a problem, because most safety regulations on the books are fairly reasonable. But that isn't the case with GMOs.
I'd like there to be government standards of "If you label your product GMO free, then you need to meet the following criteria on what that means."
But that's about the extent of it.
I disagree. Labeling implies that there is some danger or need for a label. It's the same logic and argument used to imply that "organic" foods are better for you.
Because you refusing to recognize what the act of labeling does. It isn't just "hey here's some information, citizen!"
If you look at the fact that we only label things (in a mandatory way) when there is a compelling reason to do so (typically the interest is public health), it says that GMO foods are a matter of public health.
Which they aren't, and by communicating that they are, it lends credence to a set of beliefs that are epistemically irresponsible.
So either you need to maintain that reinforcing these irresponsible beliefs isn't bad, that the label doesn't in fact reinforce such beliefs (which you need an argument for, and you haven't given one), or that we ought to or do mandate labels for reasons other than public health (also requiring an argument, which you haven't given)
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Even if GMO fears were somewhere valid, it's still such a minor concern compared to everything else he should have focused on. It's a pet issue for people bathing in luxuries, not a concern for the majority of the nation that can't afford to get everything from Whole Foods.
cmon man, this is fucking laughable
the issue either has merit to it, or doesn't. You can't on the one hand say that it does, and on the other say that we shouldn't talk about it because a bunch of wackos are also talking about it. Any criticism of any candidate can be dressed up as the wailing of a bunch of partisans.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The reason it's inherently sinister is because by forcing the labeling you're implying there's something wrong with it that people NEED to be informed about.
There's not. At all.
If a company wants to prove that their product is completely Non-GMO and label as such then fine, whatever. But you shouldn't be forced to label a potential marketing negative when there's not any risk whatsoever involved.
In any case, I suspect the real reason that it made its way into being a footnote to Sanders' platform was just the one Eat it You Nasty Pig mentions, namely, that it's easy signalling for the groups that care about it, many of which are natural Sanders constituencies, and there's little downside. The number of people who were going to support Sanders but changed their mind because one out of every 20 or so odd materials mentions GMO labelling is pretty infinitesimal.
Yeah its just a proxy war on Monsanto and if Monsanto is what we care about then let's regulate that and reform all our ip laws
Wait thats pretty hard to do!
Labels it is
That's another point:
The entire GMO debate is an extreme example of classism.
Which is really ironic for the socialist candidate.
I know lots of poor people who worry about GMO food, but they sure as heck can't afford the alternative. And it's extremely irresponsible to encourage them to worry about something that they can't change that doesn't actually do any harm.
The downside is that you give safety regulations a bad name when you put them on things that aren't actually unsafe.
There are people who mock peanut butter labels for having a warning that the problem contains peanuts. I have no problem with this, however: The difference between peanut products and non-peanut products are clear, allergens present a real medical danger, and it's silly to draw the line simply because the inclusion of peanuts is seen as too "obvious" to mention.
The GMO labeling requirement is essentially, "Warning: Product contains DNA." Which is just dumb. And it makes other warning labels look dumb by association.
You are right in that I didn't phrase my objection properly.
One should not talk about it in a way that is purposefully inflammatory, prejudicial, or obscuring of facts in a manner that will play off of people's biases. If a candidate wants to fully state their objection to the speeches in a fair-minded way that openly and honestly discusses the matter and gives their complete opinion, along with exact claims of what you find objectionable about the behavior, that's fine.
For example, something like "How can Hillary regulate Wall Street when she's getting paid enormous sums by them for speeches?" should not be said, IMO, unless you actually believe and are willing to unequivocally state that Hillary is willing to do whatever the investment banking industry wants with regards to future regulations. Saying the above with the option of later falling back to "well, I didn't mean that she is taking quid pro quo bribes, I'm just saying it makes me uncomfortable and I wish we lived in a society where moneyed networks weren't so pervasive," is bullshit. If you need to leave yourself wiggle room to fall back to a weaker claim than the one you are currently insinuating, then what you are saying is purposefully intended to mislead your audience.
I said the same thing when Hillary made similar statements about Bernie's tax documents. That shit has no place in civil discourse.
If this is the actual objection then why do the complaints in here seem to almost entirely centre around who she gave the speech to and implications of influence rather then it just being an example of the Clinton's tendency to shoot themselves in the foot for no discernible reason?
Like, I'm not sure you'd really find many people who would disagree that it was bad optics for her future political ambitions. But that does not seem to be that actual substance of the objections. Either raised by Sanders or in this thread from what I've seen.
Safety regulations should be regulated. Sell by dates are pretty unregulated and result in massive food waste. There is an element of genetic modification of food that should be regulated... somehow. I wouldn't put it on a label, but I would make FDA requirements stringent for a mass produced product, and additionally make an ethics investigation a part of the approval process.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sure, but this isn't really related to the whole "GMO labelling" proposals, since they don't actually tackle that aspect of the issue.
I suspect it's either, as you say, a way to pander to certain aspects of the political left that are into this bullshit or that Sanders is actually part of that group himself. Neither would really seem shocking to me.
Either way it's dumb and I wish he wasn't giving it any support.
It's funny you say that, because Walmart is trying to force their suppliers to at least be consistent on the terminology. If I had to guess, it probably makes it easier for them to pull food from the shelves. "Best if used by" was Walmart's choice.
yes my problems with GMO's is not that their products are harmful but that a lot of them are steril breeds that can cross contaiminate other fields so once that field comes out farmers now are force to buy seed directly from places like monsanto instead of just reseeding their fields with their own seeds. This is a pretty huge deal in developing countries cost wise. But labeling the food GMO does not really do anything to address some of the real problems.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes, but the corporate jerkoffery of Monsanto and its peers has nothing to do with that labeling.
Then i learned just how stupid people can be about this shit (and everytime i think i've found the bottom, someone opens a secret door to a deeper cavern).
And i guess i'm sortof opposed, for practical reasons.
Salt.
As I pointed out to the other poster with the same idea; salt (specifically NaCl) is hellaciously poisonous in any concentration at all.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But probably not bad for your blood pressure, which is why people were being told to avoid it for years.
... any concentration?
Please tell me you aren't serious; and if you are, please be more rigorous with your terms.
Sorry, I was speaking colloquially.
"In any concentration" is meant as "in concentrations high enough to be notable" or something thereby similar.
Obviously humans can consume extremely limited amounts of table salt without dying. As we can many other things that will kill us in higher concentrations.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Again, what concentrations in particular do you mean?
Because life as we know it would not exist without salt, and I think you are vastly overstating your case.
I'm really glad we've now spent this many posts in a completely unrelated thread based on a snarky comment I made about the Organic label for foods.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Turns out that a vast, vast majority of farmers already buy seeds seasonally anyway. That's just more scaremongering. Very, very few farmers reseed from the same crops on any massive scale.
And, as far as I know, Monsanto has never sued a farmer when some of their seeds blew into an adjacent field.
Never accidentally. There have been cases where they have sued farmers who have intentionally cultivated Round Up resistant strains from cross pollination. And in fact, one of the cases involved a settlement which legally prohibits them from suing over accidental contamination!
It's almost like this whole thing was already addressed in court and no one wants to acknowledge it.
Especially if they're young renegades making calculations about their future, but I don't really know what it has do with Bernie.
Only in the sense that people had previously been discussing whether or not Bernie would get a speaking slot if he didn't endorse before the convention.
I don't think that Bernie would have done anything close to this in a million years. But tonight was a clear example of why this rule of thumb exists