Democracy in action

[barmar]

I'm not convinced that allowing industry to police itself is much better than the government doing it. The financial meltdown was due to the banking industry going overboard, taking advantage of the few limits that the government imposed on them.

 

In the case of GMO labeling, if we don't have standard rules, I suspect that the industry will acceded to the demands of the vocal pundits who think that there's something wrong with GMO food, despite evidence to the contrary. Most consumers aren't competent to judge, and they'll see the labels as a Mark of Cain, and avoid those products. While an independent agency could fill in the role, there's little incentive for the industry to set one up for this.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps not for the makers of GMOs (profit incentives and all) but perhaps a not-disinterested 3rd party like the insurance industry.

 

Since they are involved with risk assessment and management, they would balance out the cost of potential harm versus the premium paid by the industry to evaluate their products. Actuarial calculations would help with any long-term side effects. This has the downside of reducing human suffering to facts and figures as well as the obvious possibility of collusion or profit-optimization by the insurers. But then, is there an upside?

[mycroft]

My issue, as I've mentioned before, is not safety, but good customer service.

 

I want to know if the system is hiding the fact that $company_I_dont_like is involved in the food I'm buying, because they are deliberately trying to capture all farmers, and I don't like that. I want to know if $company_using_sweatshops is involved in the brand of clothes I'm buying because I want to discourage that behaviour.

 

In both and more of those cases, many many companies (not just the specific ones I know about) are spending a *lot* of money trying to make it harder for me to make those decisions. I wonder why.

 

Do I care if it's safe - for me - to use these products? Given that I'm living on borrowed time already, no. Does it matter? No. Business is actively trying to unfree the market by removing information from the customer end; I'm the customer end; it's "not fair" if I actively resist?

[barmar]

My issue, as I've mentioned before, is not safety, but good customer service.

 

I want to know if the system is hiding the fact that $company_I_dont_like is involved in the food I'm buying, because they are deliberately trying to capture all farmers, and I don't like that. I want to know if $company_using_sweatshops is involved in the brand of clothes I'm buying because I want to discourage that behaviour.

How would a label that says something like "This product was produced using genetically-engineered wheat" further that desire?

 

This seems more like a job for the FTC, requiring disclosure of all the manufacturers who contributed substantially to the product. Although that could be quite a long label.

[mycroft]

Oh I don't disagree - but if I see "corn" and "GMO", I've seen enough ads watching curling to know who's involved. Maybe it's harder for me to work it out if it's not what I actually want - but "you must hide this from the consumer, because an educated customer is bad for business, so let's regulate ignorance" is guaranteed to be harder than that.

 

But I'm a pinko liberal. I believe "we will not allow lower levels of government to make the following kinds of regulations" should be protecting people - particularly people currently being discriminated against, societally or legally - not businesses.

 

I *expect* businesses to protect their business niches, even to the point of trying to regulate out of practicality anything that might compete against it. I expect politicians to think of the voters - and that means resisting those businesses when their protections are damaging to those voters.

 

I expect to be regularly disappointed in everything but being regularly disappointed.

[barmar]

But I'm a pinko liberal. I believe "we will not allow lower levels of government to make the following kinds of regulations" should be protecting people - particularly people currently being discriminated against, societally or legally - not businesses.

I agree. The problem is that much of the regulation of GMO has been fueled by alarmists. As a result, the labels end up scaring consumers unnecessarily rather than protecting them. It's like putting Jenny McCarthy in charge of the department that regulates vaccines.

[mycroft]

I don't disagree with this, either; except that choosing to eat or avoid "food from $COMPANY-locked seeds", for whatever reason, has no impact on the herd of people who do the opposite. I do notice, however, that the makers of the vaccines aren't lobbying government about *that* (about many many other things, sure - but again, mostly "please weaken, or at least not strengthen" the regulations that require us to tell everyone about things that may harm sales because the customers freak out for no reason).

 

It's more like putting Richard Dawkins (or, going the other way, Tipper Gore) in charge of what's allowed on radio. It might lead to bad client decisions, and may change the landscape of what businesses will be successful, but is it a huge deal?

[barmar]

When you allow the industry to regulate itself, you sometimes get Big Tobacco -- for many years they mounted a disinformation campaign against the claims that cigarettes cause lung cancer. They covertly funded supposedly independent scientific studies that supported their claims. It wasn't until internal memos were uncovered that blatantly admitted that they were aware of the health problems and were deliberately trying to sow doubt that the gig was up, and successful class action lawsuits were mounted against the industry.

 

You'd think that the insurance industry would have been eager to counter them, since treating cancer costs them so much. But I suspect they felt that they couldn't fight Big Tobacco. So instead they just factored the costs into their premiums, perhaps even charging higher premiums to smokers.

[Al_U_Card]

It pretty much comes down to conflicts of interest and/or the appearance of conflict of interest. Regulation is not enforcement and enforcement can be an effective tool or a blunt instrument. Either way, establishing independent arbiters is harder as the complexity of the issue at hand increases.

 

Profit is an efficient motivator while losses are the best eliminator (except where government can be induced to provide subsidies... or regulations against competition).

 

Democracy at its best, protects the rights of the individual from the excesses of the masses.

 

At its worst, it is a lumbering, careless and wayward means of directing the masses out of the wilderness (frying pans and fires come to mind here)

[blackshoe]

I got an email yesterday which alleged it was going to tell me something "disastrous" about the food we eat in the United States. I kind of suspected what it was about, but what the Hell, I was bored. So I clicked on the link to a video. The guy spent forty-five minutes telling me he was gonna tell me something important "in just a minute". Then he mentioned GMOs — and he still didn't get to the point, which was probably "give me money and I'll save you". Nope, sorry. Anybody who bases his sales pitch on fear-mongering is persona non grata in my house. I stopped listening.

[Al_U_Card]

I got an email yesterday which alleged it was going to tell me something "disastrous" about the food we eat in the United States. I kind of suspected what it was about, but what the Hell, I was bored. So I clicked on the link to a video. The guy spent forty-five minutes telling me he was gonna tell me something important "in just a minute". Then he mentioned GMOs — and he still didn't get to the point, which was probably "give me money and I'll save you". Nope, sorry. Anybody who bases his sales pitch on fear-mongering is persona non grata in my house. I stopped listening.

But he wasn't talking about GW? :lol:

[barmar]

Heard a story on "Marketplace" yesterday related to this. While this new law preempts states from requiring labeling of GMO foods, it does allow voluntary labeling. What's happening is that companies that produce non-GMO foods are starting to add that fact to their labels. And there's an organization called the Non-GMO Project that sets standards for this label, and maintains a database of products that meet their standards.

 

So it looks like this may go the same way as "Organic" labels -- rather than force the Mark of Cain on the "bad" products, we allow producers to put a label on their supposedly "better" products.

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/food-industry-plays-it-both-ways-gmo-labels

[mycroft]

That may work - provided the term means something (and yes, I know "GMO" means everything I've ever eaten in my life, under "breeding counts" definitions of modified).

 

It may easily go the way as "organic" - which means absolutely nothing, and if it turns out that "non-GMO" labelled things sell, an unregulated mark will be abused by people who can come up with a reason why they're "non-GMO - well, *we* didn't do any modifying".

 

The only "voluntary marks" that seem to be difficult to assault are the ones with religious backing (Halal, Pareve, Kosher). I wonder why? [Note: I don't really wonder why.]

[barmar]

That may work - provided the term means something (and yes, I know "GMO" means everything I've ever eaten in my life, under "breeding counts" definitions of modified).

Are you ever going to give up on that pedantic definition? GMO refers to genetic engineering, not natural evolution of the genome through selective breeding. The meaning of a jargon phrase is not just the literal meaning of the words.

 

I'm pretty sure HR 1599 doesn't use the term GMO, I think it refers to foods that result from genetic engineering. But even if it did, there would probably be a definition section that says what counts.

[mike777]

Fair enough, but it keeps coming back to somehow human modified genes in a lab need to be labeled, genes modified by plants or stars or humans not in a lab do not.

At the very least this is discrimination, this is not equality

 

IN fact it sounds like crony capitalism thus my objection.

[mgoetze]

Do you eat meat? If so, do you know how animals are fed? Do you think all meat should be labelled accordingly?

[onoway]

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Pork from animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated diet full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour and can almost be cut with a fork it is so tender. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

 

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificially confined and stressful environments with an equally restricted and artificial diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone not a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

 

Ah yes, we can trust the governments or the industries to look after our interests..when a bunch of people die and the cause is clear and almost immediate. That's how we ended up with diseases such as mad cow disease, when animals such as cows and sheep were being fed ground up offal from slaughterhouses. When THAT experiment proved to be fatal to some people, the practice was stopped. If it had taken longer for the disease to develop it would have taken much longer to make the association and the practice would have been allowed for much longer; if it isn't clear and simple, politicians don't want to know. And at least in Canada, the government has actively dismantled almost all independent research and fired all the scientists who might have some research results other than those stridently promoted by industry...no matter what industry.

[onoway]

If any of you have ever had pork or chicken or beef raised in accordance to the animal's natural style of living, you would know there is an enormous difference in the final product. Animals raised in cages with barely enough room to stand up or lie down, fed artificially concentrated feed full of additives (antibiotics etc.) is tough, dry and flavourless unless drenched in all sorts of sauces and herbs. Properly raised and humanely slaughtered pork is full of juice and flavour, pork chops can almost be cut with a fork they are so tender without any special treatment. Even the ubiquitous Yorkshire, bred to have as little fat as possible, is infinitely better. If you happen to luck into pork from a Red Wattle or Berkshire raised naturally you are in for ambrosia.

 

This bill would ..if applied as is to animals and not plant foods.. say that animals raised in highly artificial environments with a highly artificial and heavilly chemically dosed diet could be advertised as naturally raised. It's an example of the peevish Alice in Wonderland comment: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." although what industry is saying is not what anyone other than a "spin" doctor would recognize as having that meaning.

 

Ah yes, we can trust the governments or the industries to look after our interests..when a bunch of people die and the cause is clear and almost immediate. That's how we ended up with diseases such as mad cow disease, when animals such as cows and sheep were being fed ground up offal from slaughterhouses. When that experiment proved to be fatal to some people, the practice was stopped.If it had taken longer for the disease to develop it would have taken much longer for the practice to be stopped, and many many more people would have been affected. If it isn't clear and simple, with a direct (and fast) path from a to b, politicians don't want to know. And at least in Canada, the government has actively dismantled almost all independent research and fired all the scientists who might have some research results other than those stridently promoted by industry...no matter what industry.

 

As someone mentioned above, how long did it take for the politicians to do anything about tobacco? It's a very good analogy, it also was regarded as a wonderful product, endorsed by doctors for years. And..nobody was actively restricting research into tobacco. That said, I personally think if people want to smoke, they should be able to do so where they are not impacting other people without their consent, but they should know exactly what risks they are running, and most decidedly people should not be forced to use it daily in some form without their knowlege.

[mike777]

As I mentioned before I expect in a generation or two ...eating animal meat may become a minority thing such as smoking. Perhaps lab grown meat may become more tasty and popular as eating animals becomes less acceptable.

[barmar]

Fair enough, but it keeps coming back to somehow human modified genes in a lab need to be labeled, genes modified by plants or stars or humans not in a lab do not.

At the very least this is discrimination, this is not equality

The types of modifications that can occur naturally are very limited. A mouse gene can't get into an elephant naturally -- the mouse would be crushed when they try to mate. :) And if you cross-breed two safe varieties of corn, you're not likely to get a new variety that's poisonous -- neither of them has a poison gene, so neither would the offspring.

 

When humans do genetic engineering, we can make almost arbitrary changes to the genome. This allows much more variation than is possible in nature, with more potential bugs if we get it wrong.

[mike777]

Again whatever mankind creates or destroys is fully part of nature. It is an act of nature. Nature crossbreeds in many surprising ways. Genes jump species.

 

Of course nature produces poisons and it kills and it destroys and it creates.

 

If we are going to label, let us do full disclosure if we are going to educate when it comes to modified genes, otherwise we impose a cost only on manmade in the lab gene modification. That is crony capitalism, that is my objection

 

Also pls see my posts on the "time" factor.

[Winstonm]

The types of modifications that can occur naturally are very limited. A mouse gene can't get into an elephant naturally -- the mouse would be crushed when they try to mate. :) And if you cross-breed two safe varieties of corn, you're not likely to get a new variety that's poisonous -- neither of them has a poison gene, so neither would the offspring.

 

When humans do genetic engineering, we can make almost arbitrary changes to the genome. This allows much more variation than is possible in nature, with more potential bugs if we get it wrong.

 

I think you are missing Mike's bigger argument (if I understand him correctly) that humans are part of nature and therefore anything that human's do should be considered natural. This is a valid question in biology, and it is the argument that many libertarian types use to justify ignoring government guidelines on endangered species, acid rain, etc.

 

It would then follow that engineered seeds would be considered natural - which fits in nicely with Monsanto's thinking. :P

[mike777]

I think you are missing Mike's bigger argument (if I understand him correctly) that humans are part of nature and therefore anything that human's do should be considered natural. This is a valid question in biology, and it is the argument that many libertarian types use to justify ignoring government guidelines on endangered species, acid rain, etc.

 

It would then follow that engineered seeds would be considered natural - which fits in nicely with Monsanto's thinking. :P

 

yes, thus the mythology of Dr. Frankenstein as an act against nature and God. That is what is really going on here. :)

 

Again as for the rest see my posts on time in this thread.

[barmar]

So cars, computers and oil wells are "part of nature"?

 

By that reasoning, EVERYTHING is part of nature, and thus the term is totally meaningless. That's not how anyone actually uses it. Technology created as a result of human ingenuity is considered to be different in kind from things created by unthinking, natural processes.

 

For example, previous climate change cycles (e.g. the ice ages) were natural. Climate change caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy is not natural, even though humans are part of nature.

[mike777]

So cars, computers and oil wells are "part of nature"?

 

By that reasoning, EVERYTHING is part of nature, and thus the term is totally meaningless. That's not how anyone actually uses it. Technology created as a result of human ingenuity is considered to be different in kind from things created by unthinking, natural processes.

 

For example, previous climate change cycles (e.g. the ice ages) were natural. Climate change caused by human use of fossil fuels for energy is not natural, even though humans are part of nature.

 

so a bird's nest or a beaver dam or a bee hive is not part of nature? They are all part of the thinking process. If you create something by thinking, it is not part of nature or an act of nature, it is not natural?? I have no idea why creating by thinking of stuff makes it not fully part of nature.

 

of course cars, etc are a part of nature, as much as when a star goes supernova is part of nature.

 

Of course manmade climate change is part of nature, it is fully an act of nature and by nature.

 

I understand many believe man made stuff is part magic or supernatural or the work of the devil but that is not science.

-------------------------

 

"96% of the universe's contents pass ghostlike and unnoticed through the minuscule remaining fraction" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

 

"As for the nature of consciousness, that is one question which science has not yet fully worked out" that does not mean it is not part of nature.

-----------------------

"Natural foods” and “all natural foods” are widely used terms in food labeling and marketing with a variety of definitions, most of which are vague. The term is often assumed to imply foods that are minimally processed and all of whose ingredients are natural products (in the chemist's sense of that term), but the lack of standards in most jurisdictions means that the term assures nothing. In some countries, the term “natural” is defined and enforced. In others, such as the United States, it has no meaning"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_foods