Post: #101

(05-12-2015 02:44 AM)The_e_man Wrote:  Strong bro-science in this thread.
GMO is fine. Google "appeal to nature" fallacy.
Monsanto is an evil company.
Please stop arguing over this. I respect the ideas on this forum so much that it pains me to see such uneducated stupidity that is up there with girls reading horoscopes as if they were true.

Google Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Post: #102

"Please stop arguing over this."

Why do you care what people argue about.

Arguing is a masculine endeavor. It's been beaten down in our society in fear of "triggering" people. If people want to debate GMO foods on a thread in RVF, what is it to you?

I've made my points and others are more passionate than me, so, I've bowed out, but I don't get the request for people to be silent in a thread where they are on topic.

So, again, as long as people are being respectful, and I admit, I haven't always been, what do you care?

What makes you think people should just end their conversation just because you post a very short declarative post exclaiming what you believe is right and that everyone should shut up now?

Post: #103

The GMO "Debate" Has already been settled. The beauty of science is that its not a matter of opinion. GMOs are proven safe and molecular breeding has been proven to be amazingly efficient compared to selective breeding.

Post: #104

the good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it.

and it's the first to admit when it's wrong and welcomes criticism... study... and theory development.... everything that every other type of system does not.

furthermore, whether a chemical is man-made or natural, tells you precisely nothing about how dangerous it is.

Post: #105

(05-12-2015 02:48 AM)The_e_man Wrote:  And to clarify, I mean monsanto is an evil company due to their preying on poor smaller farmers.
Their GMO use is totally fine. And I don't blame them for paying money to cover up the fact that they use GMOs.
They do this because they would lose business from stupid people applying the appeal to nature fallacy. If everyone understood GMOs were essentially an efficient version of the selective breeding process happening since the dawn of civilization, then monsanto would not need to cover up anything.

Do you guys have any idea how hot of a marketing buzz-word "all-natural" is?

It's good to know that people who exercise their right to choose what to spend their hard-earned money on are stupid, & those who like to know what exactly it is they're buying are even stupider.

Post: #106

The safety of GMOs put aside again, it is a little disingenuous that they want to circumvent labelling.
If Monsanto could put away this bad faith, they could actually market GMO foods better-compare the diets of two groups, one eating quote-unquote natural foods and another eating Monsanto-strain GMO ingredients-who is in better health?
And by trying to prevent discussion, Monsanto are shooting themselves in the foot:
There will be issues, whether the ones articulated already or completely unforeseen ones, and they will have an effect on consumers and/or farmers-that's just the industry. Pesticide use helped farmers harvest a larger crop but gave rise to allergies and falling numbers of bees, antibiotic treatments for cattle improved meat and milk yields but contributes to resistance in people who eat it and gave rise to 'slaughterhouse staph' which is very difficult to treat, cash crops drive down the price of commodities in the West but increase the cost of living in countries that produce sugar, tea, chocolate-solving one problem creates newer ones.

And while feeding the world still has challenges, GMO growing isn't going to be the only way to meet them: many more plants can be eaten than are farmed, plenty of land is given to growing crops like sugar, used to make other foods rather than to be eaten directly, and growing variety as well as quantity of crops will have a greater benefit than just growing quantity.
Some other things about GM crops have a big question mark over them, like whether bees will transport their pollen, but there are reasons outside of that to try other avenues first.

Post: #107

I love healthy discussion, I just love this forum and it's members so much that it pains me to see dicussion of this type.
I liken this to discussing whether a Libra should date a Scorpio, or if we should stop drinking tap water because the government is trying to poison us.

I have a background in science as my bachelor degree specialization was in molecular biology / biochemistry and I apologize for coming across too hard or too abrasive, but it bothers me to no end when I see society so full of scientific illiteracy.
I, too, used to apply the appeal to nature fallacy because it just seems right to think natural = good.
Once you understand the molecular and chemical basis of our world then you realize "natural" is nothing more than a marketing buzz-word. A Carbon molecule linked to Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in a certain ratio (C1H2O1) and spatial arrangement pattern is a carbohydrate. This carbohydrate does not differentiate between protons that came from nature and protons that came from evil corporations.

Looking back at my post, it was very rude and I apologize for that my brothers. But please practice scientific literacy as much as possible.

Post: #108

(05-12-2015 03:01 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  The safety of GMOs put aside again, it is a little disingenuous that they want to circumvent labelling.
If Monsanto could put away this bad faith, they could actually market GMO foods better-compare the diets of two groups, one eating quote-unquote natural foods and another eating Monsanto-strain GMO ingredients-who is in better health?
And by trying to prevent discussion, Monsanto are shooting themselves in the foot:
There will be issues, whether the ones articulated already or completely unforeseen ones, and they will have an effect on consumers and/or farmers-that's just the industry. Pesticide use helped farmers harvest a larger crop but gave rise to allergies and falling numbers of bees, antibiotic treatments for cattle improved meat and milk yields but contributes to resistance in people who eat it and gave rise to 'slaughterhouse staph' which is very difficult to treat, cash crops drive down the price of commodities in the West but increase the cost of living in countries that produce sugar, tea, chocolate-solving one problem creates newer ones.

And while feeding the world still has challenges, GMO growing isn't going to be the only way to meet them: many more plants can be eaten than are farmed, plenty of land is given to growing crops like sugar, used to make other foods rather than to be eaten directly, and growing variety as well as quantity of crops will have a greater benefit than just growing quantity.
Some other things about GM crops have a big question mark over them, like whether bees will transport their pollen, but there are reasons outside of that to try other avenues first.

For the last time. GMOs should not be labeled because they are not sufficiently different enough to warrant labeling. Just because you feel it's different does not make it so. The reality is that the world is uneven. So places are fertile as a young fit 18 year old and others are dry desserts like a woman at menopause. For some situations GMOs are the solution. In America GMOs are the solution to producing a large amount of crops to feed a population that likes to eat a lot and does not want to pay premium for food. The reason why GMO products are so successful is because they provide value to farmers.

Post: #109

Bullshit argument. See my post above.

Edit: Also lol at them providing value to farmers as if that's the only thing that mattered. Clearly it's not when farmers are getting massive federal subsidies to grow the shit.

Post: #110

Libertas - surely you must understand that if products were labelled GMO then sales for the product would diminish because people are misinformed as to what GMO truly means.
I am all for transparency but when sales are being diminished due to misinformation then we have what in economics we call imperfect market distortions. As a result of people thinking GMO = unnatural = bad = Jesus would not approve, the demand for GMO products decreases. Because food has a low elasticity of demand (there are essentially no substitutes to food), then the demand for other food items that are non-GMO would increase. This would increase the price of non-GMO food past the healthy, "natural" (hehe) free-market price equilibrium. This is actually happening today. Prices for "organic" and "all-natural" food is much higher than it should be. You are essentially paying for over-priced foliage because it is "natural."
What I'm trying to get at is if monsanto labelled their food GMO, they would - in my opinion - unfairly lose sales for no other reason then consumer misinformation. Misinformation in the sense that they think GMO = satan and natural = take my money!

Not to try and sound like a smart-ass but my minor was in Economics so I am not pulling this out of my ass. And yes, I have a strange degree where my major is in the hard sciences and my minor is in a totally unrelated field of the soft/social sciences.

Post: #111

(05-12-2015 05:19 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Bullshit argument. See my post above.

Edit: Also lol at them providing value to farmers as if that's the only thing that mattered. Clearly it's not when farmers are getting massive federal subsidies to grow the shit.

As I said before... They aren't Different enough to warrant labeling. It would be like labeling food that was picked and packed by immigrant workers vs American Citizens. It would be stupid to label them differently.

Yes Farmers are businessmen like everyone else. They can choose whichever supplier that want and they choose Seeds Bred through Molecular breeding because they are of superior quality. Sorry but feelings do not dictate reality and Anti-GMO seems to be based on feelings. Lets not get into feminist territory here.

Post: #112

(05-12-2015 05:31 PM)The_e_man Wrote:  Libertas - surely you must understand that if products were labelled GMO then sales for the product would diminish because people are misinformed as to what GMO truly means.
I am all for transparency but when sales are being diminished due to misinformation then we have what in economics we call imperfect market distortions. As a result of people thinking GMO = unnatural = bad = Jesus would not approve, the demand for GMO products decreases. Because food has a low elasticity of demand (there are essentially no substitutes to food), then the demand for other food items that are non-GMO would increase. This would increase the price of non-GMO food past the healthy, "natural" (hehe) free-market price equilibrium. This is actually happening today. Prices for "organic" and "all-natural" food is much higher than it should be. You are essentially paying for over-priced foliage because it is "natural."
What I'm trying to get at is if monsanto labelled their food GMO, they would - in my opinion - unfairly lose sales for no other reason then consumer misinformation. Misinformation in the sense that they think GMO = satan and natural = take my money!

Not to try and sound like a smart-ass but my minor was in Economics so I am not pulling this out of my ass. And yes, I have a strange degree where my major is in the hard sciences and my minor is in a totally unrelated field of the soft/social sciences.

Why does it matter to me if they lose sales? It's about consumer choice and transparency in the marketplace. Let them try to educate the public as a good company should instead of concealing their practices.

The demand for GMO products is already artificially inflated anyway due to federal agricultural subsidies if you want to bring up market distortions.

Post: #113

(05-12-2015 05:31 PM)The_e_man Wrote:  Libertas - surely you must understand that if products were labelled GMO then sales for the product would diminish because people are misinformed as to what GMO truly means.
I am all for transparency but when sales are being diminished due to misinformation then we have what in economics we call imperfect market distortions. As a result of people thinking GMO = unnatural = bad = Jesus would not approve, the demand for GMO products decreases. Because food has a low elasticity of demand (there are essentially no substitutes to food), then the demand for other food items that are non-GMO would increase. This would increase the price of non-GMO food past the healthy, "natural" (hehe) free-market price equilibrium. This is actually happening today. Prices for "organic" and "all-natural" food is much higher than it should be. You are essentially paying for over-priced foliage because it is "natural."
What I'm trying to get at is if monsanto labelled their food GMO, they would - in my opinion - unfairly lose sales for no other reason then consumer misinformation. Misinformation in the sense that they think GMO = satan and natural = take my money!

Not to try and sound like a smart-ass but my minor was in Economics so I am not pulling this out of my ass. And yes, I have a strange degree where my major is in the hard sciences and my minor is in a totally unrelated field of the soft/social sciences.

So people should be kept uninformed because they are uninformed. This way they can't make a decision.

If people are informed they might make an uninformed decision. We can't allow this to happen.

Does this about sum up your argument?

Post: #114

Darius - I see what you are saying and my argument can, unfortunately, be summed up that way.
I guess this begs a much deeper and more philosophical question:
Is society as a whole made up of rational agents that should all be free to make their decisions?
Or are most people disillusioned sheep that have no idea what is going on around them? And if they are, should we allow them to make their own uninformed decisions (anti-vax, non-GMO, jihad against all non muslims, etc.)?

I look at the world around me and see nothing but idiots. This forum is my bastion of intellectual discussion, my sanctuary where I find peace among my brothers who are the 1% that see the light and understand the world for what it truly is.
Seeing anti GMO sentiments on this forum makes me sick. Perhaps I am the one that is uninformed as I only have a rather brief understanding of this GMO discussion that doesn't really venture as far past a wikipedia web entry (and my own background in science and economics). But from what I know right now, anti-GMO is akin to anti-vaccine or anti-science. I will maybe do some of my research and be proven to be wrong.

Also, I am a 21 year old kid fresh out of university with a useless 4-year bachelors degree in science. Maybe I am the one that has no idea what the fuck I'm talking about, who knows. So I apologize for coming across as rude earlier.

Post: #115

For the last time. GMOs should not be labeled because they are not sufficiently different enough to warrant labeling. Just because you feel it's different does not make it so. The reality is that the world is uneven. So places are fertile as a young fit 18 year old and others are dry desserts like a woman at menopause. For some situations GMOs are the solution. In America GMOs are the solution to producing a large amount of crops to feed a population that likes to eat a lot and does not want to pay premium for food. The reason why GMO products are so successful is because they provide value to farmers.
[/quote]


Of course, a feel is not a real, but what's a 'sufficient' difference? Free-range and caged eggs are marked as such, and there are real, albeit slight differences in the nutritional content of those eggs-not to the consumer, but battery hens need calcium supplements to produce eggs with rigid shells that don't crack, etc. I wouldn't know the difference if I breakfasted on one fried free-range egg and one battery egg but the label is still required.

I'll gladly concede that GM foods confer advantages to the consumer and the farmer; I'm not quibbling with the evidence. Nonetheless, trust in agribusiness is hardly at an all-time high and Monsanto et alia won't win anybody over if they try to introduce their products by the back door.
Labelling is a middle road between refusing to allow it and refusing to realise that it will be perceived as different by 99% of people.
If labelling is prevented, there will be a rise in apps like NxtNutrio and other things to identify GM ingredients, and that won't help sales either-they look like the bad guy and they'll be boycotted by people 'on-the-fence'.
The benefits of GMOs are real; let the growers show those off.

(05-12-2015 04:31 PM)The_e_man Wrote:  I love healthy discussion, I just love this forum and it's members so much that it pains me to see dicussion of this type.
I liken this to discussing whether a Libra should date a Scorpio, or if we should stop drinking tap water because the government is trying to poison us.

I have a background in science as my bachelor degree specialization was in molecular biology / biochemistry and I apologize for coming across too hard or too abrasive, but it bothers me to no end when I see society so full of scientific illiteracy.
I, too, used to apply the appeal to nature fallacy because it just seems right to think natural = good.
Once you understand the molecular and chemical basis of our world then you realize "natural" is nothing more than a marketing buzz-word. A Carbon molecule linked to Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in a certain ratio (C1H2O1) and spatial arrangement pattern is a carbohydrate. This carbohydrate does not differentiate between protons that came from nature and protons that came from evil corporations.

Looking back at my post, it was very rude and I apologize for that my brothers. But please practice scientific literacy as much as possible.

Granted, much public discussion of scientific issues is not led by anyone with a scientific background. I'll let scientific arguments against GM food alone; I just anticipate a 'whoops' moment regarding this issue in ten or twenty years because so many of those have come to light from ideas, many in food-related fields, that were thought to be the last word.

Post: #116

(05-12-2015 05:52 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 05:15 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

For the last time. GMOs should not be labeled because they are not sufficiently different enough to warrant labeling. Just because you feel it's different does not make it so. The reality is that the world is uneven. So places are fertile as a young fit 18 year old and others are dry desserts like a woman at menopause. For some situations GMOs are the solution. In America GMOs are the solution to producing a large amount of crops to feed a population that likes to eat a lot and does not want to pay premium for food. The reason why GMO products are so successful is because they provide value to farmers.

Of course, a feel is not a real, but what's a 'sufficient' difference? Free-range and caged eggs are marked as such, and there are real, albeit slight differences in the nutritional content of those eggs-not to the consumer, but battery hens need calcium supplements to produce eggs with rigid shells that don't crack, etc. I wouldn't know the difference if I breakfasted on one fried free-range egg and one battery egg but the label is still required.

I'll gladly concede that GM foods confer advantages to the consumer and the farmer; I'm not quibbling with the evidence. Nonetheless, trust in agribusiness is hardly at an all-time high and Monsanto et alia won't win anybody over if they try to introduce their products by the back door.
Labelling is a middle road between refusing to allow it and refusing to realise that it will be perceived as different by 99% of people.
If labelling is prevented, there will be a rise in apps like NxtNutrio and other things to identify GM ingredients, and that won't help sales either-they look like the bad guy and they'll be boycotted by people 'on-the-fence'.
The benefits of GMOs are real; let the growers show those off.

(05-12-2015 04:31 PM)The_e_man Wrote:  I love healthy discussion, I just love this forum and it's members so much that it pains me to see dicussion of this type.
I liken this to discussing whether a Libra should date a Scorpio, or if we should stop drinking tap water because the government is trying to poison us.

I have a background in science as my bachelor degree specialization was in molecular biology / biochemistry and I apologize for coming across too hard or too abrasive, but it bothers me to no end when I see society so full of scientific illiteracy.
I, too, used to apply the appeal to nature fallacy because it just seems right to think natural = good.
Once you understand the molecular and chemical basis of our world then you realize "natural" is nothing more than a marketing buzz-word. A Carbon molecule linked to Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in a certain ratio (C1H2O1) and spatial arrangement pattern is a carbohydrate. This carbohydrate does not differentiate between protons that came from nature and protons that came from evil corporations.

Looking back at my post, it was very rude and I apologize for that my brothers. But please practice scientific literacy as much as possible.

Granted, much public discussion of scientific issues is not led by anyone with a scientific background. I'll let scientific arguments against GM food alone; I just anticipate a 'whoops' moment regarding this issue in ten or twenty years because so many of those have come to light from ideas, many in food-related fields, that were thought to be the last word.
[/quote]

It is not different and labeling implies difference. Its like segregation in the south. If GMOs are labeled then the very act of labeling them implies that they are someway inferior to foods that are not labeled as such. If i told you, you had to sit in X seat on the plane while everyone else could sit wherever they wanted, then the very act of forcing you to sit in a particular seat implies that you are different (inferior) to others. It is the same with GMOs.

Aside from that GMOs are literally in everything. Corn is fed to cows and Pigs that i'm sure of and i'm guessing chicken too because when i lived in the caribbean my neighbor fed her chicken ground up corn mixed with other stuff. So that means the main animals are "GMO". Then Almost everything is sweetened with HFCS which is a corn based sweetener and not only that but corn based ethanol is mixed with gasoline nowadays. So not only is GMO in you, but it is also in your vehicle if you're not using a diesel of course.