News Is there any scientific basis for Proposition 37?

[moonman239]

I'm sure you've all heard of Prop 37, but I'll write a short introduction. In the state of California, which is located in the United States, residents can vote on a proposition. That proposition becomes law if they vote in favor of it.

Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

Proposition 37 wil require that, with a few exceptions*, if a food item contains genetically modified ingredients, the manufacturer must state on a label that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

Fifty other countries already have similar laws.

What are your thoughts on the proposition?

*The state constitution allows a ballot initiative to cover only one topic. Therefore, there are a few exceptions. These exceptions include foods sold in restaurants, foods originating from a genetically modified animal (though you're unlikely to find such foods), and foods that unintentionally include genetically modified ingredients.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I trust the scientists who say there is no evidence:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ts-say-no-to-genetically-modified-food-labels

The American Association for the Advancement of Science says labeling would "mislead and falsely alarm consumers." The AAAS — best known for publishing Science magazine — says genetically modified foods are fundamentally no different from conventionally bred foods. In fact, the organization says they are tested more extensively than most new crop varieties.

There are no adverse health effects from eating genetically modified organisms. You are wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

"Just google it" is not acceptable substantiation on PF. Please cite some credible, mainstream evidence to support your claim about it being harmful and your claim about why Prop37 was created.

On this issue, I agree with AngryCitizen and that NPR link.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sure you've all heard of Prop 37, but I'll write a short introduction. In the state of California, which is located in the United States, residents can vote on a proposition. That proposition becomes law if they vote in favor of it.

Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

Proposition 37 wil require that, with a few exceptions*, if a food item contains genetically modified ingredients, the manufacturer must state on a label that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

Fifty other countries already have similar laws.

What are your thoughts on the proposition?

*The state constitution allows a ballot initiative to cover only one topic. Therefore, there are a few exceptions. These exceptions include foods sold in restaurants, foods originating from a genetically modified animal (though you're unlikely to find such foods), and foods that unintentionally include genetically modified ingredients.

This is a bit moronic. For example, would bud-grafting be considered as "genetic modification"? After all, you are combining the DNA of different plant species together. Is that "modified" enough?

The issue of safety is a scientific issue. It isn't validated by a popularity vote.

Zz.

 

[Evo]

What are your thoughts on the proposition?

I think it's misleading and should not be approved.

 

[256bits]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science says labeling would "mislead and falsely alarm consumers." The AAAS — best known for publishing Science magazine — says genetically modified foods are fundamentally no different from conventionally bred foods. In fact, the organization says they are tested more extensively than most new crop varieties.

If the organization says they are tested more extensively ... then it must be true!
But the blog fails in any explanation of what sort of tests are done with 'genetically' modified versus 'not genetically' modified, so the statement lacks any scientific basis of fact to make any comparison.

 

[Angry Citizen]

If the organization says they are tested more extensively ... then it must be true!

Um.. yes. I think I do trust the largest scientific organization in the nation, publisher of Science. Your conspiratorial attitude towards the scientific establishment is noted, and I wonder how much longer this thread can continue in a forum that explicitly forbids such pseudo-science.

 

[Evo]

If the organization says they are tested more extensively ... then it must be true!
But the blog fails in any explanation of what sort of tests are done with 'genetically' modified versus 'not genetically' modified, so the statement lacks any scientific basis of fact to make any comparison.

SIGH

Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous, AAAS said. Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.

In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. “As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions,” AAAS reported, “GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”

Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

more...

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

The research team conducted short-term (31 days), medium-term (110 days) and generational pig feeding studies where the health of piglets of sows fed Bt-maize is measured. No adverse effects were observed, suggesting that feeding Bt-maize to pigs of different ages is safe. "These findings can offer some assurance to consumers as to the safety of consuming Bt-maize," Peadar Lawlor, senior researcher at Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Ireland, said; "The pig is considered to be an excellent model for humans due to similarities in gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. Similar responses to Bt-maize consumption could be expected in humans," he said.

more...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124140103.htm

 

[Evo]

More.

The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to protecting and enhancing human, animal, and environmental health through the sound application of the fundamental principles of the science of toxicology. It is with this goal in mind that the SOT defines here its current consensus position on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology (genetic engineering). These products are commonly termed genetically modified foods, but this is misleading, since conventional methods of microbial, crop, and animal improvement also produce genetic modifications and these are not addressed here.

The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists.

continued...

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full

 

[Jack21222]

There are issues with genetically modified foods, but health or safety isn't one of them. For example, if I buy a genetically modified plant, the company who sold it to me retains patent rights over the plant, including the seeds. So, I'd be infringing on the patent to take the seeds from the previous year's crop to start a new crop.

It gets even more confusing when the genetically modified gene becomes so prevalent that the vast majority of anyone crop has this genetic modification. Then, the patent company could theoretically go after any farmer it wanted.

This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way. Such a case is making its way through the legal system right now. Here is a Wired article about the case:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/arstechnica-agriculture-patents/

The company didn’t want to be in the business of making a one-time sale, so when Monsanto sold “Roundup Ready” soybeans to farmers, it required them to sign a licensing agreement promising not to re-plant future generations of seeds.

However, farmers remain free to sell the soybeans they grow in the commodity market, where most are used to feed people or livestock. Roundup Ready soybeans have become extremely popular; they now account for 94 percent of all acres planted in Indiana, for instance. Vernon Bowman, an Indiana farmer, was a customer of Monsanto who realized that Roundup Ready soybeans had become so common in his area that if he simply purchased commodity soybeans from a local grain elevator, the overwhelming majority of those soybeans would be Roundup Ready. Commodity soybeans are significantly cheaper than Monsanto’s soybeans, and they came without the contractual restriction on re-planting.

So Bowman planted (and re-planted) commodity soybeans instead of using Monsanto’s seeds. When Monsanto discovered what Bowman was doing, it sued him for patent infringement.

To summarize, a farmer just bought random commodity soybeans from the market and planted them, and he was sued. The farmer lost his case in district court, and the Supreme Court agreed last month to hear it:

http://m.npr.org/news/Technology/162949288

 

[Evo]

There are issues with genetically modified foods, but health or safety isn't one of them. For example, if I buy a genetically modified plant, the company who sold it to me retains patent rights over the plant, including the seeds. So, I'd be infringing on the patent to take the seeds from the previous year's crop to start a new crop.

This is off topic.

 

[256bits]

Um.. yes. I think I do trust the largest scientific organization in the nation, publisher of Science. Your conspiratorial attitude towards the scientific establishment is noted, and I wonder how much longer this thread can continue in a forum that explicitly forbids such pseudo-science.

Not a conspirational attitude and not pseudo science.
Why you came to that consideration does not follow from any logic.
By the way, I was questioning why the blog did not list references in support of the statement and not your posting.

Evo found references most easily. The blogger could have done and should have done so also.

 

[Evo]

Not a conspirational attitude and not pseudo science.
Why you came to that consideration does not follow from any logic.
By the way, I was questioning why the blog did not list references in support of the statement and not your posting.

Evo found references most easily. The blogger could have done and should have done so also.

The NPR article listed numerous sites backing them up. You wanted even more specific information, which was not required from the person that posted, as they were simply referring to information in the article.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Not a conspirational attitude and not pseudo science.

Doubting the word of the AAAS is conspiratorial.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Personally I have not taken sides on whether GMO food is as safe. GMO is driven by private industry for profit. That is certainly no guarantee that it is safe. To think that Monsanto has no influence over any studies done on these crops is kind of naive.
-
Some of these patents are ready to expire or have already expired. But, the seed companies continue to come up with better technology so it is not economical for a farmer to hold back seed for next year on old technology. It isn't practical to do with corn anyway since for many many years seedcorn has been a hybrid. Replanting last years corn crop that averaged X bushels/acre will most likely yield a small fraction of X bushel/acre this year. So, in a nutshell, without the patents we would not have GMO.
-
Personlly I believe that if GMO is actually safe as many believe then a more proactive approach needs to be taken concerning patents. The first event we had with GMO was Roundup Ready. Over the years this has evolved and improved slightly in how/where the gene is inserted to improve yield since only its presence affected yield but the overall result is the same concerning the reason it was put there in the first place which is weed control. As far as I am concerned, the Roundup Ready genie is out of the bottle and the fun is over. No matter how clever some geneticist is, that patent should expire. For many years independent seed companies (prior to be swallowed up by Monsanto) tried a lot of crossbreeding to come up with the hybrids that yielded better. No patents were issued to them, nor is anyone issuing patents on crossbreeding today. Crossbreeding to come up with a hybrid is NOT GMO. I could see where it would be ethical to patent this practice in the very beginning but if it were done it has expired many many years ago as it should have. There have been many other patents on seed for various reasons but all so far as I know for pest control of some kind. My opinions on this are the same.

 

[moonman239]

I wish I could cite sources, but unfortunately none come to mind.

One rather interesting thing to note: The USDA says it does not consider GMO's to be organic.

Anyways, I for one want the public to know what they're eating. As the Prop. 37 proponents say, if GMO's are safe, why not say that on the label?

Monsanto is a careless company. Just ask anyone from Anniston, Alabama. Chances are good you'll find someone whose blood was found to contain over 2 ppb of PCB, which is the amount that is considered safe for humans.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I can't feel sorry for Vernon Bowman in post #10. He has purchased soybean seed from Monsanto in the past and knows all about the patent agreement. My guess is that he did not buy the soybean seed like he said. He kept it back from the previous year. Why would anyone take a chance on planting soybeans that might be Roundup Ready? Spray them for weed control and they die. Well there goes a years income... In my opinion he knew exactly what he was doing even if he did purchase from a local elevator like he said. There are different maturation rates for various soybeans as well as other traits and guess what? They all get mixed together at the elevator. I just don't buy it. No farmer is going to leave something like this to chance. There is too much riding on the seed.

 

[Angry Citizen]

As the Prop. 37 proponents say, if GMO's are safe, why not say that on the label?

What if I tattooed some label on your forehead, but not on anyone else's forehead? People would start to wonder why you're different from the rest.

Point being, there are five products that come to mind which carry labels: tobacco, alcohol, soy, milk, and peanuts. The first two carry labels because they are known to be deadly poisons that can impair one's health and one's state of mind. The latter three carry labels because they are known to be deadly or dangerous to a percentage of the population who are allergic or intolerant. In other words, they are labeled because they are known to have potentially adverse health effects on your body.

Now what about GMOs? What literature exists supporting the notion that GMOs are dangerous to even 0.00001% of the population? None, according to the AAAS.

Let me ask you a question. If it's all about "consumer choice", why don't we label how many grasshoppers were in a one mile radius of the plant in question upon being uprooted from the ground? What about the mean number of grasshoppers that traversed the area in a single hour during all full moons that were experienced during the plant's life? What about the standard deviation of individual grasshopper counts during a full day when they were measured on a per-hour basis? These are all equally relevant to the discussion of whether the organism was genetically modified.

Or, if you want to be silly, just buy organic. Like you said, the USDA regulates organic foods, and GMOs are not organic. Simple as that.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Angry Citizen, I assume the grasshopper comment is a joke. But most things that have been done with our food supply, even considering the grasshoppers, up until GMO has been able to happen easily without human intervention. Even cross breeding. It has probably happened for thousands of years without concern. Either we evolved with it or it is of no concern to begin with. You cannot say that of GMO. I am not saying it is unsafe, just saying that it is not inherently safe as pre-GMO is since that has been proven over and over.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Angry Citizen, I assume the grasshopper comment is a joke. But most things that have been done with our food supply, even considering the grasshoppers, up until GMO has been able to happen easily without human intervention. Even cross breeding. It has probably happened for thousands of years without concern. Either we evolved with it or it is of no concern to begin with. You cannot say that of GMO. I am not saying it is unsafe, just saying that it is not inherently safe as pre-GMO since that has been proven over and over.

Yes, I can, because the mechanism for genetically modifying organisms is not different from normal mutation and artificial selection, and because the available literature and the overwhelming consensus of scientists suggests that there is no difference.

I accept the scientific consensus on the matter. Maybe you should too.

 

[Evo]

I am not saying it is unsafe, just saying that it is not inherently safe as pre-GMO is since that has been proven over and over.

Humans have been altering animals and plants for thousands of years. IMO, the difference is now we do not have to do as much "trial and error" to get the desired results.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Hey lighten up. Who the hell is talking about creationists and climate change denial? I am not and quite frankly that comment pissed me off.
-
The mechanism for GMO may be just the same as normal mutation as you said. But it is accelerated. Any mutation that has occurred naturally happened very slowly and it is entirely possible that we had to evolve with it. It cannot be proven or disproven. But since we are aware that it is possible don't you think it should be a consideration considering what is at stake?

 

[Averagesupernova]

Humans have been altering animals and plants for thousands of years. IMO, the difference is now we do not have to do as much "trial and error" to get the desired results.

The trial and error/slow results was not only the problem, it was the solution to prevent something catastropic. Honestly I think we are past anything catastrophic already though.

 

[micromass]

Some physicians swear GMO's are bad for you. Now, I have not heard any names in particular.

You do realize that on this forum, you need to present source and reliable references for your claims, right?? Just presenting hearsay like "some physicians say..." is not allowed here.

Furthermore, I'm sure that I can find some physicians who claim that viruses don't cause diseases. Does that prove anything?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Any mutation that has occurred naturally happened very slowly and it is entirely possible that we had to evolve with it.

Evolution by natural selection does not happen as quickly as evolution by artificial selection, by orders of magnitude. Agriculture has been around for, what, five thousand years give or take? Modern humans are almost anatomically identical to the humans that walked the Earth fifty millennia ago, and indeed, the only reason we're not is because of some cross-breeding of our own with the Neanderthal population.

Compare this to corn circa five thousand years ago:

If we "had to evolve" with it, then we would have been at a major disadvantage. A new generation of plant begins every year. A new generation of humans begins every twenty years. Ours is driven by natural selection, which is much slower; theirs is driven by artificial selection, which allows the selection of desirable traits on a much faster basis. Evolutionary biology is against you, mate.

And I'm sorry you were offended by my comment, but the attitude that GMOs can be (or are) different from normal organisms is little different than the attitude that creationists hold toward evolution, or that climate change denialists have towards climate change. All are founded on a complete lack of evidence, and indeed run contrary to the evidence at hand and the scientific consensus on the matter. "Gut feelings" and "intuition" are poor substitutes in science.

 

[moonman239]

You do realize that on this forum, you need to present source and reliable references for your claims, right?? Just presenting hearsay like "some physicians say..." is not allowed here.

I get that. I do try to cite sources. TBH, I got some of the information in my OP from a documentary called "The World of Monsanto." Now, they didn't mention any names and I don't blame them.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Some physicians swear GMO's are bad for you. Now, I have not heard any names in particular.

Here's my question: if the USDA's organic standards "prohibit" GMO's, why is Big Ag pouring millions of $'s into a "No on Prop 37" campaign? That says volumes about how much those agricultural companies actually care about American's. They're just too greedy to care.

Probably for the same reason you'd be rather annoyed if I wanted to single you out and make you a pariah. Again, if your only objection to GMOs is Monsanto, why can't we just debate that and forget all the Prop 37 nonsense?

 

[dlgoff]

One rather interesting thing to note: The USDA says it does not consider GMO's to be organic.

Got any reference on this? Looks to me like nonsense.

http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&CNT=20&CMD=%22transgenic+plant%3F%22+OR+%22transgenic+crop%3F%22+OR+%22genetically+modified+crop%3F%22+OR+%22genetically+modified+plant%3F%22+OR+%22genetically+engineered+crop%3F%22+OR+%22genetically+engineered+plant%3F%22+&SL=Submit&DATE=2004&DTBL=G|&LANG=ENG|&STARTDB=AGRIDB

 

[russ_watters]

One rather interesting thing to note: The USDA says it does not consider GMO's to be organic.

I don't find that the least bit interesting.

 

[chiro]

If people want GMO's labelled, then label them.

If GMO's don't do anything and don't cause adverse health risks and symptoms then the science will back that up.

Also if potential risks and symptoms that can be measured both in a clinical setting and outside of it and are shown, then like the tobacco companies, they will be sued and people will decide where to put their money.

If people don't want GMO food then let them have their wish and if they are OK with GMO food then let them purchase it.

The way things are now, GMO corporations have less legal ramifications when things are not labelled if there is a claim against them because they can dilute the responsibility (something that corporations and governments are very skilled at) and because of this if you can't provide sufficient and specific evidence that GMO's have negative effects (like tobacco with cancer) then there isn't enough to go off.

It's the same reason why lots of these guys "settle" and do so in a way that they don't have to admit nor deny guilt, and the reason they do this is because of the legal ramifications associated with making any kind of admission.

It's also why you guys over there sometimes resort to "Pleading the fifth" so that you don't incriminate yourselves.

Let the market decide: if people don't want GMO's and are willing to pay whatever it is to buy organic foods (at the current premium rates) along with other non-GMO foods then that is their right to do so, and if the labelling scheme shows that GMO's do contribute to statistically significant side-effects then like with cigarettes, people have a right to know about it.

Scientists shouldn't care about this one bit because as we all know, science doesn't care what the real results are: they just are what they are and don't need anyone to vouch for them for the results to be what they are and what they are measured to be.

This is, after all, a scientific forum right?

 

[russ_watters]

This is the politics area of a scientific forum and scientifically-minded people can and often need to deal with the political implications of certain decisions. The idea of labeling GM food has no scientific basis, it is a purely political/marketing ploy.

The reason scientists care about this is scientists recognize that people can be swayed by propaganda into believing things that aren't true. The reason this matters is because food quality and food costs matter.

 

[Evo]

This is the politics area of a scientific forum and scientifically-minded people can and often need to deal with the political implications of certain decisions. The idea of labeling GM food has no scientific basis, it is a purely political/marketing ploy.

The reason scientists care about this is scientists recognize that people can be swayed by propaganda into believing things that aren't true. The reason this matters is because food quality and food costs matter.

Exactly. Labeling the food as GM or non-GM is ridiculous and makes it appear that there is something wrong with it when there isn't. There is no scientific or medical reason to list it, as has been previously shown. IMO, the reason for this ridiculous proposition is so that people that claim not to use it can charge the uniformed and misinformed population more money for a risk that doesn't even exist.

Scientists should speak up and educate the public to put a stop to this.

 

[aquitaine]

Exactly. Labeling the food as GM or non-GM is ridiculous and makes it appear that there is something wrong with it when there isn't. There is no scientific or medical reason to list it, as has been previously shown. IMO, the reason for this ridiculous proposition is so that people that claim not to use it can charge the uniformed and misinformed population more money for a risk that doesn't even exist.

Scientists should speak up and educate the public to put a stop to this.

I'm not sure to what extent that's possible. It's become its own pseudoscience tied in with New Age feel goodism. Think about it, the "pure" organics versus the "evil" and "dirty" scientifically changed food. In a highly scientifically illiterate society the "light" side will always win, especially since the other side is viewed as being the manifestation of Darth Vader.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure to what extent that's possible. It's become its own pseudoscience tied in with New Age feel goodism. Think about it, the "pure" organics versus the "evil" and "dirty" scientifically changed food. In a highly scientifically illiterate society the "light" side will always win, especially since the other side is viewed as being the manifestation of Darth Vader.

That is really depressing. IMO, it's unfortunately true.

 

[chiro]

This is the politics area of a scientific forum and scientifically-minded people can and often need to deal with the political implications of certain decisions. The idea of labeling GM food has no scientific basis, it is a purely political/marketing ploy.

The reason scientists care about this is scientists recognize that people can be swayed by propaganda into believing things that aren't true. The reason this matters is because food quality and food costs matter.

People have the capacity to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.

People face propaganda every single day and please note that the word "propaganda" is not a word to describe acts like the military opposition dropping posters and broadcasting politically motivated and demoralizing messages to soldiers: propaganda is a general way to spread someone's (or a collection of individuals) point of view in a specific way.

If you want to be a true scientist then let the consequences speak for themselves because that was science is all about: a decentralized approach to knowledge discovery that can carried out in a decentralized fashion and replicated amongst other people where the protocols of diseminating the appropriate information (experimental setup, input data, simulations, etc) is made available so that other people can use that to run the same experiment if they want to and come to their own conclusion.

Science is not about telling people what is right and wrong: that's what was meant to be done with a very very long time ago.

Real scientists will want to investigate things that are important to them by themselves and come to their own conclusions and this is what they actually do: they collect all their observations both in a clinically highly controlled and also in a variable uncontrolled environment (yes that's right, a lot of conclusions do come about from observation where you do not control the process in a rigid way) and people come to their own conclusion.

Science doesn't care what people think: it just provides the results and asks you to make an interpretation.

There is no absolute truth in it all; just a relative perspective and analysis on what you observe, what you agree that others observe, and how you bring that all together in conjunction with tools that everybody agrees on and trusts (like statistics, mathematics, particular protocols, and so on) and then you independently are supposed to make your own decision and interpretation.

This is not complicated: people want GMO's labelled for whatever reason and that is their right.

If the science is right then later on you can strengthen your arguments for the benefits of GMO's later on and if you do that then more power to you and if you really feel strongly about it, then you should do it anyway so you can let nature do its thing for a decade and then revisit all those things that people are associated with GMO's and do open investigations, publish your findings and again come to your conclusions and let others come to theirs.

They also don't need to be the one to be the first to do this (and you might want to answer why they label them in other countries: I'd like to hear that) since other countries do label GMO's (and have the protocols made publically available) like:

http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo

Personally I don't have any predisposition to believe anything and I don't care about that, but if you want to go from a real scientific perspective then this has nothing to do with science and everything to do what you are mentioning which deals with the legal ramifications of labelling, as well as the consumer issue of people knowing how to differentiate between two types of products which may or may not be bad for the business: but hey, that's the benefit of having lots of people create lots of products so that they can compete for the people that want to buy their product.

 

[chiro]

I encourage people to think for themselves and make their own choices and if labelling GMO's does that then count me in: I don't want to tell anyone what to do neither do I want to be a coward and hide behind political BS and cowardice and I don't expect anyone to do the same to me either.

 

[MarneMath]

Yes, people have the right to make their own decisions and have the power to do so, but does that mean a scientist shouldn't try to give correct information?

I can't put into words exactly what I find disturbing about your outlook, but maybe it's the fact that it seems to isolate scientist from the rest of the world, where reality is we are all connected. If one person wants to make public policy based on ignorance, they have the right to try to do so, but I also believe people who know better have a 'moral obligation' to speak up and defend science.

 

[chiro]

Yes, people have the right to make their own decisions and have the power to do so, but does that mean a scientist shouldn't try to give correct information?

I can't put into words exactly what I find disturbing about your outlook, but maybe it's the fact that it seems to isolate scientist from the rest of the world, where reality is we are all connected. If one person wants to make public policy based on ignorance, they have the right to try to do so, but I also believe people who know better have a 'moral obligation' to speak up and defend science.

Morals are relative and so is intent and both always have been.

All this does is labels GMO products as such: it doesn't in any way create constraints for the products to not be sold, or constrained in the way they are already sold, where they are sold, and also in relation to other conditions: it simply says that if you meet x criteria in having said stuff in your product then we stick a label on it.

Also you talk about ignorance: hate to tell you but everybody without exception lives in some kind of ignorance period.

People care about different things and the things that they care about and value are the ones they become less ignorant in.

Scientists care about particular kinds of science and they become less ignorant in this; people that are sports nuts become less ignorant in sports; artists become less ignorant about art; mathematicians become less ignorant about mathematics and everyone becomes less ignorant about what it is important to them.

But we are always ignorant regardless and we always will be because we never have the whole picture and we all have to make tradeoffs and one those of tradeoffs is choosing what is important and what is valuable to us.

Whatever you truly value and whatever is important to you, this is what you will become less ignorant in but otherwise you will for the most part, remain completely ignorant.

You can value and take an interest in large amounts and you will be less ignorant, but it never means you even have anything close to un-ignorance (far from it).

 

[rootX]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

People have the capacity to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.

We wouldn't need doctors if people had that capacity. There are people who willfully decide to make their own conclusions and go on crazy diets, don't seek proper medical advices. They even enforce these things on their children which I see just plain troubling.

 

[MarneMath]

First, Chiro, I find your tone to be a bit asinine and your rheotric to be moderately incoherent. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it relates to what I said or if you just wanted a venue to spew your philosophy.

I don't believe my comments indicated that I believe it's possible for someone to live there life without ignorance. I simply indictated that if a person, who is ignorant about a certain idea, chooses to act on that ignorance and make public policy, I do believe there exist a 'moral obligation' for a person who does have knowledge about that certain idea to educate the public on why such public policy is bad or good.

Is my view really radical to you or something?

 

[chiro]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

People already decide what to buy given that they have "labels" on them and people already do buy things (as well as avoid things) currently because of the brand, what their friend or relative said, or some other rumour that they heard and avoid the products for those reasons right now.

Technology and skills are not replacements for decision making: decision making is the only real advantage that you and I have and I don't know about you but I actually value the ability to make my own decisions and see their consequences.

Other people just might want to do the same thing and they have every right to do so.

A technique (of which technology is derived) will never, ever replace the ability to make a decision: ever.

If it replaces the ability to make a decision then you are no longer making a true decision, but instead just following a formula without any kind of foresight or real consideration.

If you ever worked in an area where real decisions needed to be made under uncertainty, then you would realize the value of that statement and everyone regardless of who they are will have to make many decisions under uncertainty and unfortunately for most of them, it scares the hell out of them.

The people that don't want to think and make their own completely self-made decisions have their own right to do so, but the people that do have equally the same right.

 

[atyy]

Relevant reports from the WHO, the USA National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists, not about the specific proposition in question, but about the environmental and human health issues pertaining to genetically-engineered foods. The sources are distinguished, but as some are policy recommendations, the reports are a mix of science and opinion. Although it is not clear, these include links to free versions of the NAS reports.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

 

[Evo]

Relevant reports from the WHO, the USA National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists, not about the specific proposition in question, but about the environmental and human health issues pertaining to genetically-engineered foods. The sources are distinguished, but as some are policy recommendations, the reports are a mix of science and opinion. Although it is not clear, these include links to free versions of the NAS reports.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

Opinion pieces are just that, opinions. Scientific studies showing no risk were posted already, and that is what we go with here. And at least one link has nothing to do with food. If, as you admit, they have little or nothing to do with the thread topic, what is your reason for posting?

 

[MarneMath]

I've read through the first two links and they seem relevant. Especially the first one. It answers questions people may have about GMO foods and provides more insight into the possible dangers GMO may have, but also what is done to subdue these risk. I've learned a lot :).

 

[Galteeth]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

We wouldn't need doctors if people had that capacity. There are people who willfully decide to make their own conclusions and go on crazy diets, don't seek proper medical advices. They even enforce these things on their children which I see just plain troubling.

Really? That's pretty broad. For example, perhaps I am interested in knowing the sodium content of a particular food because I am trying not to overdo it on sodium. I shouldn't be allowed to know how much sodium is in my food because.. why exactly? Something about me being too stupid to make decisions for myself? The truth is, "harmful" is not that specific a description. I could make the case that foods with high sugar content are harmful, but it's not the same thing as say , eating plutonium. Like so many things, degrees and context matter, and thinking that somebody in an ivory tower is the only one who should know what's in food cause those darn plebes just can't be trusted to decide things for themselves is exactly the sort of thing people get upset about when they talk about "elitist" scientists.

I think the knee-jerk anti-gmo stuff is silly, and I certainly don't support a law requiring labeling, but the idea of a label in and of itself doesn't bother me.

 

[Andre]

I'm aware of two disputes in this area.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf claim a corrolation between tumors and genetically modified food. However it is not endorsed by the EPSA.

Furthermore also disputed is the link between the mysterious colony collapse disorder decimating honeybees and genetically modified crops. For instance here

So, the jury is still out, imo and it occurs that there could be some ideological, political, economical and ecological bias in the discussion

 

[SixNein]

I'm sure you've all heard of Prop 37, but I'll write a short introduction. In the state of California, which is located in the United States, residents can vote on a proposition. That proposition becomes law if they vote in favor of it.

Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

Proposition 37 wil require that, with a few exceptions*, if a food item contains genetically modified ingredients, the manufacturer must state on a label that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

Fifty other countries already have similar laws.

What are your thoughts on the proposition?

*The state constitution allows a ballot initiative to cover only one topic. Therefore, there are a few exceptions. These exceptions include foods sold in restaurants, foods originating from a genetically modified animal (though you're unlikely to find such foods), and foods that unintentionally include genetically modified ingredients.

Benefit: Labeling the foods would allow people to study them in the long term since the foods could be identified in the population.
Risk: On the other hand, it could make people needlessly suspicious. Bear in mind that there is no known health-risks with foods on the market, and there exists a consensus that these foods aren't harmful.
Risk: increased cost from the logistics involved in labeling the food.

Does the benefit outweigh the risk? I would say no.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Really? That's pretty broad. For example, perhaps I am interested in knowing the sodium content of a particular food because I am trying not to overdo it on sodium. I shouldn't be allowed to know how much sodium is in my food because.. why exactly? Something about me being too stupid to make decisions for myself? The truth is, "harmful" is not that specific a description. I could make the case that foods with high sugar content are harmful, but it's not the same thing as say , eating plutonium. Like so many things, degrees and context matter, and thinking that somebody in an ivory tower is the only one who should know what's in food cause those darn plebes just can't be trusted to decide things for themselves is exactly the sort of thing people get upset about when they talk about "elitist" scientists.

I think the knee-jerk anti-gmo stuff is silly, and I certainly don't support a law requiring labeling, but the idea of a label in and of itself doesn't bother me.

Clearly "those darn plebes" don't know jack about what they're talking about if they equate genetic modification with sodium content and sugar.

Here's something to consider: You are a genetically modified organism. Can we label you too?

 

[MarneMath]

That's a fair assessment, but even so, people have the right to ask for labeling of Food and in a democratic process, vote for such label. Should policy be made out of ignorance? Of course not, but I don't believe governing is always done best by those who are the smartest.

To me, the issue at stake isn't so much what labeling actually does for GMO. It has to do with the inherent cost to label something. We will have to regulate it, test it, test things we think are non-gmo just to make sure, and enforce it. Doing a cost-benefit analysis, the extra cost to regulate this greatly outweighs any benefit that labeling may have. The simple want to just be aware, in my mind, cannot justify the required cost.

 

[Angry Citizen]

That's a fair assessment, but even so, people have the right to ask for labeling of Food and in a democratic process, vote for such label.

Buddy, who's disputing the right? As far as I can tell, no one. I don't support California voter initiatives because they often end up doing Bad Things to the state, and I certainly don't support proposition 37, but I don't question the people's right to have their say on this.