The GM labelling debate really is about attempting to kill a market before it gets off the ground by playing on people’s fears. There is also evidence that the “organic” foods you see in the supermarket comes down to nothing more than a marketing ploy.
If the average citizen were more informed about the real dangers in our food supply then this might not be an issue. Unfortunately the media only seems to mobilize itself when an issue that may or may not pertinent is brought up. Even when the retractions start coming in it is far more likely that those will get less attention than the original “scare.”
No shit, Sherlock. You go ahead and read all kinds of interpretations into that article that normal, thinking, rational human beings just don’t see, and you think it’s boring to have to explain to the rest of us just exactly how you got your test results? Think how it is for us, Sparky. :rolleyes:
It looks to me like you’re just annoyed that the article didn’t come right out and say, “Mugabe is an evil demon!” and since it didn’t say that, that means, to you, that it was “celebrating” him.
Nice critical thinking there. :rolleyes:
So, to take the quibbles one by one…
The article said this:
And your quibble is that you don’t think the words "facing acute food shortage"are strong enough? How would you have preferred him to put it? “Millions of innocent Zimbabwean children are going to take months and months to starve horribly, with those ugly bulging bellies, and those arms and legs like nauseating little sticks, and those flies crawling all over their yellowing eyeballs!”
And you think that because he didn’t beat the reader over the head with the fact of the upcoming Zimbabwean famine, that means that he’s “celebrating” Mugabe? Geez. :rolleyes:
Next quibble.
The quote isn’t referencing “whether there’s going to be a famine” in Zimbabwe"–the quote is referencing whether Mugabe’s government is doing all they can to provide food.
Here’s the entire quote.
As it happens, there is some doubt whether his government is actually “struggling” to provide food. There is plenty of food aid available in the world, but his government doesn’t seem to give a damn what happens to their people, and so it is indeed questionable whether they’re “struggling” to provide food.
Right, except that he’s not there to talk about the famine–he’s there to talk about how “Southern Africa Is Threatened By American Genetic Plants And Food.” Remember?
Next quibble.
So your quibble is that the article referred to Mugabe’s land grab as a “fast track land reform aimed at addressing colonial ownership imbalances”. You seem mainly disappointed that he didn’t come right out and say, “That Evil Demon Mugabe STOLE land from people!” And so if he didn’t say that, it means he’s Mugabe’s apologist? Must be nice seeing things in black and white like that. Hint–not everybody feels it necessary to refer to it as “the Evil Demon’s land grab”, including the writer–see below.
You seem to be reading the paragraph as meaning, “Humanitarian organisations and the donor community ONLY complain about election results and ‘land reform’”, and you think the fact that he didn’t add, “…and Humanitarian organizations and the donor community ALSO complain about the famine” means that he’s “celebrating” him? Like, what, you think that he thinks that if he doesn’t mention the famine, then his readers won’t know that one is happening, and so that makes him Mugabe’s apologist?
Next quibble.
The article says:
And your quibble is:
Well, possibly, but denigrating Mugabe’s critics doesn’t = “celebrating” Mugabe. Is it not possible for him to be merely neutral? Must you insist that he choose up sides? Either he’s “with” Mugabe or “against” him? Maybe he just thinks that all of Mugabe’s critics are stupid, that they can’t think of anything insightful to say, but just repeat the S.O.S. over and over again.
Also, there quite definitely IS such a thing as “the usual anti-Mugabe rhetoric”, the same way there is such a thing as “the usual anti-Republican rhetoric” and “the usual anti-Democratic rhetoric”. But, of course, you wouldn’t know anything about that… :rolleyes:
Next quibble.
You missed the whole point of the statement. It’s not apologizing for, or celebrating, Mugabe–it’s a conspiracy theory that has absolutely nothing to do with Mugabe. “American companies are recolonizing Africa through advanced techologies!” Okay, fine, but what’s it got to do with Mugabe? Nothing. But it’s got everything do to with the TITLE of the friggin’ piece, which is–“Southern Africa threatened by American genetic plants and foods”. Duh.
You talk about “bias”, there it is, his whole message. His article has hardly anything to do with Mugabe in the first place, geez, Mugabe is just a sideshow, he’s not there to talk about Robert Mugabe, he’s there to talk about American GM corn and how it’s threatening Africa.
Ditto for this quibble.
This has nothing to do with “celebrating” Mugabe, either.
<< sigh >> What I said already, about not being there to talk about the famine, but about American corporations and their evil GM corn.
I consider your point refuted.
However, to be fair, I will tell you who wrote this article, and where he’s coming from. Campaign dot org reprinted it from the Smyrna Perspective, who post news from the Liberian (and African) perspective, courtesy of the Internet.
It was written by a Tanzanian journalist named Finnigan wa Simbeye. His articles are widely posted on Google. Here is what else he has to say about Mugabe.
I can make a case that it’s no particular pro-Mugabe bias that makes him refer to it as “fast track land reform” instead of a “land grab”, that it’s just a quest for professional survival. Not everybody in Africa thinks Mugabe’s land reform program is a bad thing. Inept maybe, terrible PR for Africa certainly, but not necessarily “evil”.
Maybe a young Tanzanian journalist won’t get very far if he does too much finger-pointing at the Powers That Be, especially if his finger-pointing is perceived as sucking-up to the Western media with their perceived anti-Africa bias.
However, the issue here is not Sambeye’s worldview, but the article you cited, which did not IMO “celebrate” Mugabe.
Sua:
See, that’s what happens when you take one of December’s links at face value. There are no “people” here who are “dismissing Mugabe” because he “supports them on this one issue”–there is only a Tanzanian journalist who is actually addressing the issue of Evil American Corporations Who Are Re-colonizing Africa Through Technology.
I think that to compare the two practices (selecting for particular traits of an organism over generations as humanity has done since the advent of agriculture millennia ago vs. recombinant DNA) is rather simplistic and misleading. I assume that you do so in order to make the point that they are essentially the same thing. I would argue that this is not the case.
This is not to say that GM foods have been proven to be somehow inherently bad, or harmful. Rather I am suggesting that it is wise to recognize that this is an inherently new technology and as such should be approached with a healthy amount of prudence.
Of course, it appears you did not actually read my post. I said that the trolls who wrote that article have pushed me towards the anti-labelling side, not that I would ‘actively choose to deny consumers’ anything. BTW, how would I do that, if I wanted to - wander through supermarkets and rip labels off of bags of bread?
And guess what, dalmuti - it’s a fact of life that an unsavory person or group aligned with your cause is likely going to harm your cause - unless you promptly and forcefully disavow yourself and condemn their offensive positions.
Which I note that you did not do here. Instead, you decided to blame it on me. Yet another strike.
Gotta tell you, it looks like you pro-labeling types have a bit to learn about public relations. First rule: engaging and convincing the undecided is more effective than scolding the undecided. :wally
I think that labelling is the right way to go. Hell, there was resistance to legislation requiring labelling of ingredients.
As far as concerns about safety go, I think the only real issue is allergens-- and that’s a relatively small issue. Novel proteins in GM food are vetted for common allergens before they are approved for human consumption. We’re not going to be buying apples that produce peanut proteins any time soon. That being said, someone with severe food allergies should be able to buy a tomato without worrying that they might be getting something extra.
Totally apart from safety concerns, people should be able to decide for themselves. You know what? I don’t care if the pesticide Btk is harmless to humans. If it’s sprayed on a crop, I can wash it. There are GM crops which produce their own pesticides. Convenient for the producer, but the consumer doesn’t really get anything out of it, except for a bit of Btk with their meal. Probably harmless, but if I have a choice, I’ll pick the old-style carrots, thanks.
I guess that’s not totally apart from safety concerns, since it relies on the consumer’s comfort-level. A better example would be the case of veggies that are altered so that they ship better, that is, their appearance holds up better for a longer period of time, so they can be exported further. Do I want to buy “fresh” produce that was harvested weeks ago?
It’s silly to characterize labelling advocates as wanting to kill the entire biotech industry. That’s based on the idea that no-one will buy GM foods if they know. Absurd. If produce looks, tastes, and smells, better than what’s sitting beside it, most consumers are going to choose it.
Hell, I’d buy a tomato as big as my head if they produced one. Save time in the kitchen. When all GM food is labelled, I think we’ll see that produce that’s engineered to directly benefit the consumer (better taste, colour, size, etc) will do well, while produce that’s engineered to suit the convenience of producer doesn’t do as well–unless the benefit of cost-savings is substantially passed on to the consumer.
And I am saying that if this is the case, labels will not achieve that affect. The affect should happen earlier; for example, by requiring a thorough testing of GM foods before sale. Appealing to prejudicial ignorance by means of a label offering information for the sake of information seems to be going about it from the wrong direction.
I didn’t just mean to quibble. I agree with Sua that the article showed a “willingness to cursorily dismiss the evil that Mugabe has committed just because Mugabe supports them on one issue.”
Exactly. From what I’ve read, millions of people are facing starvation and the situation is rapidly worsening. The words quoted above do not adequately convey the seriousness of the situation. Do you have any arguments that they are strong enough (other than sarcasm, ridicule, and the all-powerful :rolleyes:)?
You claimed to offer the entire quote, but then provided a partial quote. The entire quote is
It’s unclear whether “said to be” expresses doubt over Mugabe’s efforts or doubt over the number of people facing acute food stortage. I think ik it probably means the latter. This interpretation fits in with other areas where this article soft-pedals its criticism of Mugabe. YMMV.
Yep, I see this as Mugabe intentionally starving thousands or millions of people. That’s as black and white as it gets. And, I think that anyone still giving Mugabe credit for land reform is a Mugabe apologist. Your cites show that this particular Mugabe apologist is African.
Now, that’s a quibble.
About a leader who intentionally starves thousands or millions of his own people? I don’t see how.
And, you have ignored the whole point of my statement: the offensive and inappropriate use of the word recolonising.
That’s a fair point, DDG. I’ll give you that one.
It’s interesting to know something about the person who wrote the article itself. I appreciate the information, DDG. Still, my analysis concerns the article itself, regardless of authorship. Also, it was the decision of The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods to reproduce this article on their web site.
Guinastasia, yes I remember JanL, a racist, who nevertheless put some liberals on this board to shame by being more concerned about Zimbabwean people then they were.
Hey, if dudes who sell products without GM food want to trumpet this on their label- fine by me. If there is even a Gov’t reg which regulates what “GM food free” would actualy mean on a label- well, alright I guess. But in general the Gov’t REQUIRES la 'warning label" on products that are somehow harmful- which GM foods are not.
So, yes, I oppose the required labeling on foods which contain GM products- just like I would oppose a label on foods that DO NOT fit “organic” or “natural” to be labeled “not organic” or “non- natural”. If you want to buy non GM foods because of an irrational fear- then YOU need to search for labels which say “GM free”- and there are such labels.
And yes, DDG, there have been a very few circumstances in the past decade (but come on now- Thalidomide?? It wasn’t approved in the USA you know, and that was half a century ago, anyway. Be real) where they approved something but it turned out to be dangerous. But when it was dangerous- it was denagerous to a small % of users. AND, it hasn’t happened in many cases, as you post clearly implies- in fact the % is so small it goes under “sig figs”. So, it happens VERY rarely, and when it does, it happens to an odd few. You might as well concern youself with meteorite crashs, and carry a steel umbrella all the time.
To echo part of DrDeth’s sentiments. Labels that say GM-Free would be a great selling point for a number of products. Persons who have severe food allergies can seek them out for safety sake, and persons who merely prefer more natural food sources can as well. I would very much prefer this type of labeling, which echoes the “organic” and “dolphin-free” types of labels. It is purely a voluntary positive statement about a product, rather than a forced negative statement.
He didn’t CARE about the Zimbabwean people-he cared about the Afrikaners losing their supremacy. The guy was a poster at Stormfront, for crying out loud!
Exactly. Yet, regardless of his underlying reasons, he did express more concern about the poor Zimbabwean people than did many liberal posters on this board.
For the record, the FDA’s stance on genetically-engineered foods and labelling of same can be found here. Some quotes of interest:
Also, an interesting paper on the results of focus groups established by the FDA to determine consumer perceptions towards biotechnology (as applied to agriculture) can be found here.
