8 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Or instead you could trust people to make informed decisions. (please note the use of the term informed, it is etymologically linked with information) Indeed it is rather ironic that your reason for not having GM's clearly labeled is not logical in itself but amounts to some kind of vain assertion that people will act out of fear and ignorance when ...[text shortened]... stance that you are promoting is intended to keep them ignorant of whats actually in their food.
Or instead you could trust people to make informed decisions.
How can those that are the totally ignorant about it make informed decisions about it? "informed" decisions implies they have been educated about it which they haven't if they still think the irrelevant info is relevant. If they were truly informed, they wouldn't want the totally irrelevant information on the labels.
The effect would be the same if you labelled all food as being either "harvested by blacks" or "harvested by whites" after some crazed people saying on the news that food harvested by blacks is bad; many ignorant people may actually think the color of the person who harvested it was relevant information and, if you told them that it irrelevant, they would simply think and say "well why is always put on the labels then!? It must be relevant else they wouldn't put it on the labels! idiot!".
you are promoting is intended to keep them ignorant
No, I am stopping them being even more ignorant! Ignorant in thinking irrelevant information is relevant! If all the labels say either GM or non-GM, that would give the clear impression to those who don't understand what that means that it is somehow relevant because they would assume that info wouldn't be put on the label unless it was relevant! Which it isn't! It would be in effect LIEING to them!
of whats actually in their food.
which is generally no different than what would be in there food if it was all non-GM. GM means it has been genetically modified, NOT necessarily nutritionally modified! Any new gene put in it would be made of the SAME edible DNA that is in natural food anyway! Do you think that a new gene would pose a risk to health? If so, how so? And how would it be more likely to be more risky than the genes that were already in the food?
Suppose a lettuce is GMed to be tolerance to drought with a new gene that gives it some tolerance to drought. WHY would that be relevant information to someone who just wants to eat the lettuce? The new gene would be made of exactly the SAME edible DNA in its other genes that would be in the lettuce anyway and would be broken down in the gut by digestive juices along with all the many other genes so what's the problem? WHERE is the risk and/or relevancy?
Originally posted by humyYour attitude is condescending and your insistence that people are too ignorant deeply disturbing. People buy products on an ethical basis and to state that the information that a product displays is of no significance in the case of genetically modified ingredients is about as ignorant as the meanest medieval monk. Thats its superflous is simply nonsense. Is packaging, trademarks , important to the contents? No well shad-up-a-yo-face.Or instead you could trust people to make informed decisions.
How can those that are the totally ignorant about it make informed decisions about it? "informed" decisions implies they have been educated about it which they haven't if they still think the irrelevant info is relevant. If they were truly informed, they wouldn't want the total ...[text shortened]... s along with all the many other genes so what's the problem? WHERE is the risk and/or relevancy?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your attitude is condescending and your insistence that people are too ignorant deeply disturbing. People buy products on an ethical basis and to state that the information that a product displays is of no significance in the case of genetically modified ingredients is about as ignorant as the meanest medieval monk. Thats its superflous is simply nonsense. Is packaging, trademarks , important to the contents? No well shad-up-a-yo-face.
your insistence that people are too ignorant ...
Which people? I said some people are too ignorant, NOT all people. Just some people being too ignorant to respond rationally is reason enough not to do it.
Is packaging, trademarks , important to the contents?
trademarks are relevant info for other reasons. The physical make-up of the packaging is important for other reasons. Whether the food is GM is nether relevant info nor important to either the contents nor the physical make-up of the packaging nor for anything else that would make any rational well-informed person want to know whether the product is GM in particular. Thus packaging and trademarks have nothing to do with it. You still haven't explained to us why whether it is GM IS relevant or important in a way that food that is GM should be so labelled.
If you insist on all food being so labelled with such irrelevant info, why not insist all food should be either labelled "harvested by blacks" or "harvested by whites"? Some ignorant people (I can even personally name a few but won't ) would think that is relevant info just like some ignorant people think GM is relevant and the two are JUST as irrelevant as each other so, why not? In fact, using the same 'logic', why not label all food with a thousand other irrelevant facts about it -each bit of info being one that some ignorant people think relevant? That would make all food labels pages long! -I hope that makes now see what it wrong with your 'logic'.
Originally posted by Metal BrainFurther studies on what? Each GMO product is different. That is the whole point. Labeling something GMO tells you nothing useful about the product.
It is not an irrational fear, it could possibly be a very rational fear. Until further studies are done people have a right to know if GMOs are in their food.
It is an irrational fear.
I find it interesting that some on this thread are using the term "anti-science" which is misleading at best. Cloning people is illegal in some countries, is that anti-science too?
What is the connection?
Originally posted by humyCan you tell us what the benefit is to the consumer of using genetically modified ingredients in foods?your insistence that people are too ignorant ...
Which people? I said some people are too ignorant, NOT all people. Just some people being too ignorant to respond rationally is reason enough not to do it.Is packaging, trademarks , important to the contents?
trademarks are relevant info for oth ...[text shortened]... uld make all food labels pages long! -I hope that makes now see what it wrong with your 'logic'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDifferent? Point? What point? Some GMOs can be harmful, that is my point.
Further studies on what? Each GMO product is different. That is the whole point. Labeling something GMO tells you nothing useful about the product.
It is an irrational fear.
[b]I find it interesting that some on this thread are using the term "anti-science" which is misleading at best. Cloning people is illegal in some countries, is that anti-science too?
What is the connection?[/b]
Food that contains GMOs should be labeled so the consumer can protect themselves. If you want a specific label for bt GMOs that is fine with me.
It is not an irrational fear. See my last 3 posts.
Originally posted by Metal BrainLots of foods can be harmful. Do you insist that they be labelled 'food'?
Different? Point? What point? Some GMOs can be harmful, that is my point.
The fact that some GMOs may be harmful does not in any way suggest that all GMOs are harmful, or even that they are more likely to be harmful than non-GMO crops. Labelling them 'GMO' does not tell the consumer whether or not it is harmful.
Food that contains GMOs should be labeled so the consumer can protect themselves.
Except the consumer can't protect themselves with this label as it tells them nothing useful about how dangerous the food is.
It is not an irrational fear. See my last 3 posts.
You last three posts demonstrate perfectly that it is an irrational fear. Would you like me to walk you through them? It could get embarrassing.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Lots of foods can be harmful. Do you insist that they be labelled 'food'?"
[b]Lots of foods can be harmful. Do you insist that they be labelled 'food'?
The fact that some GMOs may be harmful does not in any way suggest that all GMOs are harmful, or even that they are more likely to be harmful than non-GMO crops. Labelling them 'GMO' does not tell the consumer whether or not it is harmful.
"Food that contains GMOs should be labe ...[text shortened]... m? It could get embarrassing."
Sure, walk me through them. Start them in the order I posted them.
Sure some foods can be harmful, that is why peanuts are on the ingredient label even if the equipment was used for peanuts previously. Asking me if they should be labeled food is just stupid of you. Where do you get this stuff from? It is just as stupid as Kazet asking if black people packaged the food.
"Except the consumer can't protect themselves with this label as it tells them nothing useful about how dangerous the food is."
It tells them it contains GMOs which can be harmful and not discovered to be harmful until a later date like bt GMOs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI insist that you walk me through them. Start in the order that I posted them.
Lots of foods can be harmful. Do you insist that they be labelled 'food'?
The fact that some GMOs may be harmful does not in any way suggest that all GMOs are harmful, or even that they are more likely to be harmful than non-GMO crops. Labelling them 'GMO' does not tell the consumer whether or not it is harmful.
[b]Food that contains GMOs should be la ...[text shortened]... it is an irrational fear. Would you like me to walk you through them? It could get embarrassing.
When have you ever been reluctant to embarrass others on here? I'll take that risk, will you?
Originally posted by twhitehead"I find it interesting that some on this thread are using the term "anti-science" which is misleading at best. Cloning people is illegal in some countries, is that anti-science too?
Further studies on what? Each GMO product is different. That is the whole point. Labeling something GMO tells you nothing useful about the product.
It is an irrational fear.
[b]I find it interesting that some on this thread are using the term "anti-science" which is misleading at best. Cloning people is illegal in some countries, is that anti-science too?
What is the connection?[/b]
What is the connection?"
Embracing new science technology just for the sake of being pro-science and criticizing others and labeling them "anti-science" is really stupid! Cloning mammals is science but it is flawed science and there is good reason to prohibit the cloning of people.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077226/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/cloning-pioneer-dolly-put-death/
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainThen labelling stuff 'GMO' simply because some of them may be harmful is equally stupid of you. If there are GMO products that are harmful them label them specifically, just as you label peanuts.
Sure some foods can be harmful, that is why peanuts are on the ingredient label even if the equipment was used for peanuts previously. Asking me if they should be labeled food is just stupid of you.
It tells them it contains GMOs which can be harmful and not discovered to be harmful until a later date like bt GMOs.
All foods 'can be harmful' as you have already admitted - and they too may not be discovered to be harmful till a later date. Maybe bananas will be found to be harmful. Therefore we should label all fruits with the label 'fruit' as it may turn out one day that certain fruit like bananas are in fact harmful.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI agree. But that is not why you are being called anti-science.
Embracing new science technology just for the sake of being pro-science and criticizing others and labeling them "anti-science" is really stupid!
Cloning mammals is science but it is flawed science and there is good reason to prohibit the cloning of people.
I agree.