Another glitch in the Marco-bot: Marco Roboto repeats Nashua, NH 02:08:16 - YouTube
They don’t have to pass laws here, they produce the propaganda here, and export it to third world countries who fall for the scare tactics and ban the life saving technology there.
One of the biggest expenses is the risk that the public will be whipped up into a fury by Micheal Moore, or an activist academic preaching pseudo science, and that a given project won’t even be able to be completed, or will have to change it’s design to comply with new regulations that come into existence due the climate of public opinion being shaped primarily by those who are uninformed and whose main goal is to spread alarm. The alarmist rhetoric comes primarily from the left.
“action on climate change” has become a political football, as everyone knows. I don’t have any confidence that any of the solutions proposed by the Dems will actually ever do any good, I think they are more likely to simply become yet another way for certain people to become power brokers and gatekeepers. There are a lot more important reasons to oppose coal power plants than CO2. All kinds of nasty compounds come out of those stacks.
We are decades behind, and this is due to anti-nuclear sentiment, which is in turn due to misinformation campaigns that clearly have originated with and been propagated by the left, almost exclusively.
A agree with you about the current state of the GOP 100%. But as far as anti-science rhetoric goes, the left isn’t any better at all. And in terms of damage done, they happen to have been worse.
What would you say to a law that mandated all companies headed by a Jewish executive had to mark their goods? That’s just right to choose too, right?
Because that’s the same. :rolleyes:
I suppose you oppose organic labelling rules? How about country of origin? Do you think ingredient labels should be able to call partially hydrogenated soybean oil just “soybean oil”?
No, it’s not the same, but labelling requirements should be based on science, not what the citizenry happens to be afraid of or worried about whether or not there is anything to it. If you base such decisions only on science, you don’t have to worry about discriminatory labelling. If you just give in to public hysteria, then we will actually have issues like that. For example, in Australia, some meat is kosher or halal yet not labelled as such, and some people are kinda freaked about it for no particular reasons:
Halal meat does not pose a health threat, but I guess people want the right to choose. Problem is, we don’t get to impose unjustified labelling requirements just because something is bothering us.
A GMO plant is a different ingredient than a non-GMO plant. Even if we don’t have some sort of banner on the front label warning that it is GMO, surely we can at least differentiate in the ingredient list.
Furthermore, I’m fairly certain that every new scientifically created food ingredient that has been found to be carcinogenic or bad for one’s arteries etc was not known to be harmful when it was first introduced to the food supply. Why do we think we are in some special time in scientific history when this fact is fundamentally different?
You make good points. But really it’s unnecessary. When companies use only non-GMO ingredients, they advertise it on the packaging. If it’s not labelled organic or non-GMO, it’s GMO. As a kosher buyer, I know it’s kosher if it’s labelled kosher, and if it isn’t labelled kosher, it probably isn’t. Same with gluten free, dairy free, sugar free, etc.
It’s more the same than you think: In both cases, it’s mandating a label based on something which has nothing to do with the food, and everything to do with public hatred; in both cases, the label is the second half of an outright fear campaign, the more reasonable fraction of an utterly unreasonable assault.
Would you be in favor of organic labeling rules if people were being lead to believe organic food was toxic?
If there were a focused campaign claiming Mexicans were poisoning the food they were shipping here, we’d have to seriously reconsider those laws.
This is an actual difference in what the substance is, unlike GM food.
Thanks, adaher, fair point.
Derleth, you didn’t respond to my points about the lag time it often takes for science to determine what changes in food are harmful. And when you say GMO food is no different from non-GMO, are you claiming no lab could detect a difference? I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect.
As for country of origin, I won’t buy grapes that are not domestic, and there is mainstream media advice to that effect:
Nice to know that you will be lobbying to prevent consumers from knowing about this too. :dubious: Are you a lobbyist for Big Food or something? You must hate Michael Pollan.
That sounds like what the right did to Obamacare.
Excuse me? Genetically-modified species are different, literally, at the most fundamental level possible. You might hold that they are different in beneficial ways, or immaterial (to the eater) ways, but they are, unquestionably, actually different.
Yeah, I don’t see how you can mandate labeling a chemical change, like the partially hydrogenated oil, and not want to label a genetic change. You wouldn’t allow carrot juice and tomato juice to be mixed without putting both on the label, so you should do the same if you slip some tomato genes into the carrots.
I’m not too worried about genetically modified carrots escaping from their vat and attacking my nether regions, but if people want to avoid them, they should be given the means to do so.
That’s a lot of double think, but an understandable dilemma of classical liberals. Forget politics, how often is the most popular thing the best thing? The most legitimate? Appealing to the lowest common denominator is a bad thing in most contexts, but the main feature of democracy.
Only if and when people stop lying about their effects.
Then make the labels state exactly what the differences are, in neutral language, as opposed to just saying GMO.
So if people falsely started saying that yellow delicious apples were better for you than pink ladies, you would say that we should just label them both apples? This is absurd.
Buy you aren’t asking for labeling any genetic change - you’re asking for labeling genetic changes only if they’re created via a specific mechanism. For example, the organic guidelines don’t allow “GMO”, but you’re allowed to blast your seedlings with radiation to induce “natural” variation and capture the favorable mutations. That that’s allowed, but not “GMO”, highlights the absurdity of the anti-GMO side.
Good point. Label the radiation-blasted stuff, too.
So long as we are labelling everything that every interest group objects to, I want meat that is processed in a foreign country to be labelled. Currently, if a chicken (or fish or pig) is raised in the US, it can be shipped to China for processing, then shipped back here, and be sold or added to other products without being labelled as foreign processed.
Seconded, both of you.
Derleth, I’m going to take your silence as tacit admission that you do have an economic motive for your opinion.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” - Upton Sinclair