Fall League coverage has tied me up all week, but I’m stuck around the house today waiting for a mechanic to finish $1500 in repairs to my car’s A/C, radiator, and catalytic converter assembly (the latter rather important with an emissions test looming), so here’s a mess of links I’ve collected over the last three weeks. Enjoy.
- Monsanto and other major manufacturers of synthetic pesticides are spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat California’s Prop 37, which would require that genetically modified foods be labeled as such. Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Nestle are also listed on the Yes on Prop 37 site among companies that have spent at least $1 million to defeat this basic pro-consumer law, which doesn’t ban genetically modified foods, but merely enables consumers to make informed choices.
- With the Orioles’ unlikely season ending yesterday, it’s a good time to revisit Wire creator David Simon’s podcast with Sports Illustrated‘s Richard Deitsch. Speaking of Simon, he also did an interview with Salon a few days before that podcast in which he revealed that HBO turned down a Wire spinoff that would have followed Tommy Carcetti’s career in a new series.
- Yahoo!’s Jeff Passan wrote a great piece on former A’s prospect Grant Desme, who retired from baseball to join a seminary after a breakout Arizona Fall League performance in 2009. I didn’t see Desme as a potential star or even a solid regular, but that doesn’t make his story any less interesting.
- What your beer says about your politics. More fun than meaningful, although I think in my specific case it’s pretty spot on.
- Via mental_floss: Why does sex make men sleepy? Amazing how you can explain things with science.
- Bill Shaikin of the LA Times did a wide-ranging Q&A with Bud Selig. I’m having a hard time seeing the distinction between the Dodgers’ and Padres’ situations that Selig tries to make.
- I haven’t tried this recipe yet, but I did bookmark it because it sounds and looks so good: crackly banana bread, using whole wheat flour and whole-grain millet to add a crunchy texture.
- Michael Ruhlman on the fallacy of “follow your passion” advice. He meanders a bit before getting to the crux of the post, but I enjoyed following his train of thought, and I certainly agree that passion and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.
- I usually avoid straight politics here, but I’m linking to this David Leonhardt piece on ”Obamanomics” because I like the underlying story of how a poor evaluation at the start of a rebuild can negatively affect policies for several years afterwards and lead to further incorrect evaluations that support the first erroneous conclusion. It could just as easily apply to teams like Houston and Colorado at the beginning of long rebuilding processes, to teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore that had unexpected successes this year based partly on individual performances that aren’t likely to recur.
- Maybe self-esteem is the wrong buzzword for improving happiness – experimental social psychologist Heidi Grant Halvorson argues that self-compassion is the real key. I first came across her writing in this July piece on success that argues (I admit without much evidence in the article) that believing in your own ability to learn and improve is a key to increasing job performance and finding happiness in your work.
I enjoy the links and wish you’d do it more regularly.
Also I really hope the GMO bill passes is California.
Believing in your own ability (what psychologists call self-efficacy) has been demonstrated to improve performance. Here’s a link to my undergrad advisor’s website. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/self-efficacy.html
I know this is your personal blog so sorry to hijack it with baseball stuff but how did the Rockies get in this position? I understand why the Astros are in need of a serious rebuild. They seemed to always want to win 75-85 games, spent money on over the hill free agents including middle relievers, they lost draft picks and when they did pick they werent getting potential high cieling impact players. I don’t think that the Rockies did anything as glaring to put themselves in a rebuild mode. They signed their 2 impact franchise players to large but fair market deals, i don’t think they have had any really bad free agent signings. They traded Ubaldo Jiminez while he still had some value. Granted the players that they got back haven’t developed but Ubaldo is basically replacement level at this point. I am not a Rockies fan so I do not know what their draft strategy has been but i don’t remember them being regularly panned for making bad picks. I guess in short my question, how did the Rockies get here?
Jim Tracy raped your team
re: the proposed “basic pro-consumer law”
I don’t really see the need. There’s no real evidence GMOs are awful for us, which is the message the government would be sending by requiring labeling. And companies that want consumers to know that their products are GMO-free are, well, free to label them “GMO-free”. So why do we need a law about this? Why not follow the precedent of “organic food”?
Pseu makes a great point. GMO-free foods are free to label them as such. If a non-GMO-free food did the same, truth-in-labeling laws could be used to set the record straight. I’m not a fan of requiring companies to put thing on their labels. Violates too many freedoms from me. Rather than requiring them to say any one specific thing, simply require that what they do choose to say be accurate.
@Pseu: Because people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves whether they want to ingest geneticially modified food or not. As Klaw said, it’s not banning them, it’s just letting people know so they can make a decision about it.
@Mike
Of course folks should be allowed to make those decisions. No one here is arguing otherwise. But the argument on the table is about what things companies should be _required_ to list vs. those they are merely _allowed_ to list.
Are we going to require labels for “non-organic”? for “non-kosher”? for “non-high-fiber”? Why would any of those requirements be superior to just allowing companies who wish to advertise their organic/kosher/high-fiber products as such?
Mike,
Nothing stops consumers from making an informed choice right now. Just like mandatory calorie counts, there is something abhorrent about government mandated speech, even if it is big corporations that are the target.
All things considered, if you have two apples in front of you one gmo and one not gmo, which do you eat? The non gmo. Things often are gmo in order to be resistant to weed killer and bug killer. Yummy! Round up in my food. But, you can wash it right off…..
One can easily google “super weeds” and “superbugs” to see how that’s working out so far.
Also, consumers cannot make informed choices, that’s nonsense. Pick up a jar of pasta sauce and explain what each thing is on the label. You don’t like that particular ingredient? That’s Okay, a food company can just rename it and you won’t know the difference.
Pretty much Brian. Letting companies put whatever they wanted on tobacco labels worked really well for years!
I’m curious exactly what protected freedom putting labels on food violates. By your logic, should companies not be forced to put ingredient labels on their products? Where does that cross over into becoming ‘abhorrent forced speech?’
If your argument is that calorie counts and GMO labels and warning labels on tobacco scare consumers away, but without those labels, they would be purchased, aren’t you admitting that they are not in fact able to make an informed choice and are being misled by not being given full information?
Mike,
So where do we draw the line? Should high fat foods have to declare themselves as such on the front of the label? “BUTTER… NOW HIGH FAT!”
If you don’t want GMOs in your food, don’t buy products with GMOs in them. If you don’t know which ones do or don’t, then advocate for those that don’t to VOLUNTARILY label and certify as such.
I believe in truth-in-labeling. If you elect to put anything on your label, it damn well better be accurate. But if you don’t want to include something, such is your right. How is forced speech any less of a violation of free speech than censorship? Free speech means the right to say something AND the right to NOT say something.
For me, I read food labels. Thoroughly. To the best of my ability, I avoid foods with ingredients I can’t identify. I buy a pasta sauce that lists its ingredients as tomatoes, olive oil, salt, and basil. Is it possible that there is something else in there? Sure… but if there is, that is actionable.
And I never said any labeling “scared” consumers away. Talk about a strawman. What I said is that they violate the rights of the creators of those foods.
And, personally, I don’t care if there are GMOs in my food. I’ve seen zero reputable evidence that there is any cause for concern over their inclusion. I do have other problems with Monsanta, but the presence of GMOs in my food is not one of them.
“And, personally, I don’t care if there are GMOs in my food. I’ve seen zero reputable evidence that there is any cause for concern over their inclusion.”
this^
Should high fat foods have to declare themselves as such on the front of the label? “BUTTER… NOW HIGH FAT!”
Argument by false analogy. Fat content is already listed in the box with nutrition information – and if a consumer doesn’t know that butter is mostly fat (80%, although I bet many consumers assume it’s 100%), I think s/he has bigger problems than food labels.
What I said is that they violate the rights of the creators of those foods.
This isn’t a logical fallacy so much as an outright inaccuracy. Identify this right and the statute that grants it.
GMO products are impossible for consumers to identify unless they are explicitly labeled as such. You can’t look at a can of tomatoes and know if they contain a gene grafted from a peanut. This isn’t merely an issue of consumption, although that alone is a reason I avoid most foods that are likely to contain genetically modified crops (Oreos being a notable exception, because there is no substitute). Genetically modified crops are typically grown using suboptimal practices such as heavy uses of herbicides in the cases of crops modified to be resistant to those chemicals. There’s also the broader environmental concern of spreading GM crops – here’s one such study. An educated consumer should be allowed to choose to avoid such crops on philosophical grounds, such as concern for the environment, rather than strictly concern for health.
As for the comments about “zero reputable evidence” that GM ingredients are harmful, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence – and these foods haven’t been in the food supply for very long, nor are they as widely studied as, say, artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose, which, while disgusting, are quite safe. I’m a pretty rational person, but I don’t believe these crops come without costs, whether in health or in environmental consequences, particularly from increased use of pesticide and potential soil erosion.
On a related note, I may have linked this previously but it is germane to this discussion – trial lawyers are going after food producers who fail to include items on their labels. While I’m no fan of tort abuse, this seems like the ideal outcome of labeling laws – they force honesty in labeling.
“Oreos being a notable exception, because there is no substitute.”
http://www.newmansownorganics.com/food_newman-os.html
“What I said is that they violate the rights of the creators of those foods.
This isn’t a logical fallacy so much as an outright inaccuracy. Identify this right and the statute that grants it.”
Well said. People always take this idea of rights granted a step too far. You absolutely have the right to put or not put anything you want on any label, what you do not have is a constitutional or statutory right to having a store sell your product. I’m sure little girls and their lemonade stands don’t have any rules mandating ingredient listings on their labels, but when you want a store to sell your product, you have to abide by government regulations.
when you want a store to sell your product, you have to abide by government regulations.
Because there’s an implied contract between consumers and the government that a packaged item sold in stores is safe, and that positive claims on labels are accurate.
It is crazy to me that people advocate for less clear information because it violates the rights of food producers. What a bizarre way to think. It’s like going to a restaurant and not being able to ask the chef what’s in the meal because it violates the chefs free speech.
I work for an ingredient supplier who happens to make both GMO and non-GMO ingredients (non-GMO being made in Europe and Canada, GMO in the US). It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Prop 37. Suppliers are already positioning non-GMO ingredients at higher prices…and suppliers are lower on the value chain than manufacturers, so I’m expecting you’ll see some different SKUs (like you currently see with organic claims) with non-GMO priced considerably higher. The question is whether consumers will want to pay the higher prices for non-GMO products…my guess is that it will remain a niche like organic.
Personally, I’m all for honesty in labeling. The danger is when people exploit regulations for their own benefit. As Keith mentioned, artificial high intensity sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame are safe, but people still equate them to human carcinogens due to misinformation.
As a last note, it would be fairly easy to make non-GMO oreos…I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw a small launch of these in California.
Folks here really have a skewed sense of “rights”.
“Well said. People always take this idea of rights granted a step too far. You absolutely have the right to put or not put anything you want on any label, what you do not have is a constitutional or statutory right to having a store sell your product.”
If stores don’t want to sell my product, so be it. I have made zero arguments that stores should be required to sell any particular products. If a store wants to only sell food that is labeled with their GMO content, they should be able to. So, yea, strawman.
“This isn’t a logical fallacy so much as an outright inaccuracy. Identify this right and the statute that grants it.”
Um, it is called the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right *NOT* to speak. You really think the government should be able to compel speech?
I haven’t seen a single counter-argument to GMO-free foods voluntarily labeling as such. Do non-organic foods have to identify as such? No. But organic foods often opt to identify as such so that consumers seeking organic products can find them. The same should be true for GMO. If you want a GMO-free food, advocate those foods that are GMO-free to label themselves accordingly.
“There’s also the broader environmental concern of spreading GM crops – here’s one such study.”
I’m talking about health impacts, not environmental impacts. Show me a peer-reviewed study that shows substantiated health impacts of foods with GMOs.
“Personally, I’m all for honesty in labeling.”
Neel,
My argument is that any wording that is put on packing ought to be 100% accurate. So, you can’t call yourself GMO-free if you’re not. Just like you can’t call your food sugar free if you have sugar in it.
If it is really important to you to have GMO-free food, seek out GMO-free food. How hard is that?
Um, it is called the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right *NOT* to speak. You really think the government should be able to compel speech?
That’s very, very wrong. The federal government has long been able to compel or quash speech by corporations regarding the products or services they sell. The quacks who sell echinacea can’t claim it cures the common cold, because they can’t prove it. They weasel around it, but their right to ‘free’ speech is clearly abrogated by federal statutes and regulations. Similarly, the federal government can compel some types of corporate speech, such as nutritional labels or ingredient lists. Some of these regulations are quite recent, such as the addition of trans fat content to the nutrition label. So, yeah, I do think the government should be able to compel, regulate, or forbid some types of corporate speech when the goal is protecting the interest of the consumer.
Just because the government does something doesn’t mean that it ought to be able to. See: eminent domain.
Plus there is no evidence that the consumer has a compelling interest in knowing the GMO content of food.
That’s absurd.
Ask anyone whether or not they want to know if their food is gmo or not.
Two things:
1.) Ask me. I don’t care.
2.) Just because people WANT to know doesn’t mean they have a compelling interest to know. You realize those are different things, right? People WANT lots of things. It doesn’t mean they should use the government to compel other folks to offer it.
There has been a lot of conversation about “rights” here, particularly whether food corporations have a right to label their products as they see fit. But what “right” do consumers have to know what is in there food? Where is that enshrined in any legal document? From what natural right does that emerge? More specifically, what right do they have to know whether their food contains a type of product that all science has pointed towards have zero impact on health?
It is also worth nothing the myriad of exceptions that Prop 37 includes: organic food need not label as GMO, even though the presence of GMOs does not make something non-organic. Restaurants need not label.
Folks want to look at those funding opposition to Prop 37 but look at those funding support of it (the numbers pale in comparison, admittedly): a bunch of organic producers. They want their competitors to have to put something scary on their label, despite no evidence that it actually is something to be feared, because it gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace. “Don’t buy theirs! It’s full of evil GMOs! Buy ours! We’re organic! (Though we use GMOs also but we’re not required to say so…)”
This is a political issue, not a health issue.
This isn’t a product where you can choose not to participate. Everyone eats multiple times a day. Knowing exactly what we eat is a good thing and not some violation of1st amendment rights. You’re advocating for LESS information and trying to obfuscate that through a horrible rendering of the constitution. That we all eat multiple times a day itself is a compelling reason. Guess whether the food in your house is gmo or not. Wouldn’t you find it nice to have clear labels on food? (I also don’t follow your truth in labeling bent above. If a label isn’t true then that’s opening to tort. – then again I assume you see tort as a burden on society too? God forbid someone be made whole for harm done)
Regulation of this isn’t some evil that we must be vigilant against. You’re so determined to make sure we have no govt in our lives that you miss a lot of the good that comes with govt regulations of food. It should be noted that food companies aren’t these angelic entities only wishing the best for their consumer.
Re rights: red herring. We already have labels we are just asking for more on those labels.
Finally, like text books in Texas, if California requires labels of gmo likely others states will see the gmo label on the product based on sheer volume that ca can move. Eventually other states will follow because as everyone will like it. Well, no, apparently you’ll find it harmful, somehow.
Really, you’re trolling? You actually advocate for less information based off of tortured interpretation of the constitution and that gmo (narrow focus as you seem to disregard crop diversity as a footnote and not even a big deal) might not be worse than non-gmo food?
(Wow, I seem to have kicked off a bit of a kerfuffle here.)
If enough folks were really that interested in knowing whether their food items had GMO content in them, then food items labelled as “GMO-free” would command a premium in the marketplace, and manufacturers would have an incentive to shun GMO ingredients and to trumpet their own products’ non-GMOness. All this could easily occur w/o the heavy, clumsy hand of government getting involved at all.
That this (by and large) isn’t happening suggest that most consumers don’t particularly care about GMO ingredients. If the anti-GMO folks here think we are all insufficiently frightened of GMOs, then what they could do is to use their own free-speech rights to convince us that we are mistaken. If they succeed in doing this, then the process outlined in my prior paragraph would take place and, again, the problem would take care of itself.
Brian,
You seem interested in constructing strawmen. I think tort is exactly the mechanism through which truth-in-labeling laws should be mediated. If you lie on your label, you are opening yourself up to lawsuit and, possibly, criminal charges.
I advocate for information being given voluntarily. If non-GMO foods want to label themselves as such, why aren’t they? Just like organic foods. Do we require non-organic foods to label as such? No. We allow organic foods to identify themselves and prevent non-organic foods from falsely making that claim. GMO should follow the exact same path. Why wouldn’t that be preferable?
And, again, I don’t care if my food has GMOs or not. Most people don’t. If they did, they’d stop buying foods that didn’t explicitly advertise as such.
There is a very difficult time getting tort victory on obfuscation on labels due to cost and murky laws. Sueing isnt cheap. But the larger point is the actual difficulty in discerning what’s actually in a product. I think, off the top of my head, there are 20 ways to label msg. If one wishes to avoid msg, for whatever reason, it’s nearly impossible unless you have an incredible understanding of chemistry or better yet, a smart phone with ability to figure out what exactly hydrolyzed gobbldigook actually is while your in a store making a decision. i personally know a few vegans and they have a hell of a time avoiding animal products because of the bizarre nature of our food labeling (example: look at a label of jello and figure out what’s in it that’s animal related if anything at all.) that doesn’t strike you as problematic?
Having clear, easy to discern labeling will never be done voluntarily by a food manufacturer – ever. I have no idea why there persists the myth that the market will serve humanity in the best way possible. It’s a lie fostered by industry. The best way for people to act in their interests is to force enterprises to act In a way that benefits them. Gmo is an example. It is a great start down a path towards pro-consumer choices labeling and that’s done via forced regulation often at the impetus of the voter. It should be noted that bloombergs controversial bans in NYC seems to be doing exactly what they are meant to do – make people healthier.
Re you choice of gmo, 1. You’re simply ignoring the actual environmental harm as though that doesn’t matter. It, like, should really rule this conversation and you’ve put it aside as though its secondary. Crop diversity is a really big deal and whether or not you understand it does not lessen how big of a deal it actually is*. 2 If I pick two plants one gmo the other not out of my yard, and I spray the gmo one with round up, and the other has not been sprayed, which do you choose? That’s why labeling matters. Because you don’t see that product (roundup) doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Just read a warning label on roundup.
*i have no idea your knowledge of plant diversity but its a really big deal.
Finally, I believe part of the difficulty is that food companies buy huge amounts of products -notably corn and soy. Those are mixed with some being gmo and some not. Sorting those is another layer in the production. Very often that ragu, or bertolli, or Classic pasta sauce may or may not have gmo based on what was dumped into a batch.
I’m most still agog that people actually think knowing more about our food is a bad thing. Is it a “govt is bad” dogma that’s so ingrained that the good govt does is blurred? I’m really not seeing your arguments as being good.
Oh – also “organic” is a certification that one has to pay the USDA to certify. I’m not sure if that’s clear based on your reply above, but one cannot put organic on a label as its illegal based on the USDA guidelines. Organic has a number of guidelines a farmer must adhere to in order to qualify for that label.
I think our disagreement boils down to how this labeling is done. I want it mandated by the govt as willed by voters, and you believe in the market? Is that reasonable?
I’ve made zero impacts about the environmental impact of GMOs. I’ve spoken solely about the health impacts (or lackthereof). If folks want to decrease the usage of GMOs for environmental reasons, this is a horrible way to go about it. You know what likely happens? The prop passes, companies label as GMOs… and the vast majority of consumers continue their buying patterns.
You’re right that there is a lot of obfuscation in labeling. But where do we draw the line? Must non-vegan foods identify as such? Should unhealthy foods be required to say “UNHEALTHY”? I don’t like foods that aren’t handmade by women named Martha… should every food that doesn’t meet this criteria be required to identify as such?
There likely do exist cases where there is a compelling consumer interest in mandating a certain type of labeling. I don’t know if GMOs suffice given that there is zero evidence of their impact on the health of consumers. And, again, if you want to tackle the environmental issue, this is the wrong way to go about it. Not only will it be ineffective but it is such a roundabout approach as to be just plain dumb.
And, for the record, I’m not a “government is bad” person or a “the market cures all” person. On this particular issue, I think you have a very vocal minority that is fear mongering based off bad or nonexistent science. I do believe in certain regularly powers of the government and certain mechanisms to ensure consumer protection. I believe in encouraging consumers to make informed decisions. I am not saying that consumers should be barred from having this information. I am only registering opposition with this particular form of information disbursement. If a consumer wants to be informed, there is no shortage of ways for them to become informed.
Here… 5 seconds of Googling: http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/
Fair enough, I do think there was a system proposed recently that was a stop light system for health (going from memory here) where green is healthy (whole grain cereal), yellow was okay (Cheerios) and red was bad (captain crunch). I thought that a great idea. I get the obvious limitations but the reality is it would change habits – which is key.
I’m a huge fan of people eating healthy (and that includes farming practices, which you dismiss, weirdly) and want them to be able to choose wisely. As it is now we see cereal made from real crunch berries. That’s deliberately trying to confuse and create a faux nutritious cereal. Food is pretty simple and we subsidize it in bizarre ways where it is cheaper to buy chicken nuggets and sauce to dip them in over a salad. Gmo is directly responsible for that as farmers are subsidized by total crops grown – gmos can be very productive with weed/pest killers working properly. Eliminating gmos from the marketplace by eliminating or greatly reducing demand is the best way to eliminate gmos from become more and more common. As it is now items like watermelons, grapes, tomatoes aren’t gmo available, but they are in the works.
My concern is with the entirety of our food system and while you want to keep the discussion narrow as it benefits your argument, the reality is that very few believe gmo to be a better way to farm over practices that have been done for millions of years. We have gotten away from our food production as a society and turned it into a factory instead of a place where crop diversity is happening. Did you know petroleum waste is used in commercial farming? Your just advocating for the continued use of factory food which is frankly awful food because it violates free speech. Or some reason you’ll put forth where it’s unfair to call out that food is essentially filler with little to no nutrition.
We have a nation of fat people, whose burden on our health system is going to become an exponential problem as these people age and their problems worsen. We harp and holler about obamacare or vouchers but the reality is the reduction in healthcare costs is directly related to diet and exercise. Crusading for a better food system is noble and should be encouraged. Kudos for ca and their putting it on then ballot.
Also – as clarity, my vegan friends don’t ask for “vegan friendly” food labels, those are easy to find. Their concern is with the ever changing nomenclature of food labels. Common example is high fructose corn syrup going to corn sugar.
I’m keeping the conversation narrow because we were (or I thought we were) talking about Prop 37. I oppose most farm subsidies, believe in eating more food and less stuff, and think we’d all benefit from increased food and nutritional knowledge.
I also think these issues are complicated by class issues… How affordable would food be if it was all GMO free?
If you want to talk about the complexities of our food system, we can have at that. But don’t conflate that with a specific law on the ballot in California. It’s shifting the goal posts far too late in the game.
“Or some reason you’ll put forth where it’s unfair to call out that food is essentially filler with little to no nutrition.”
Show me where I said that. No where. As a free speech advocate, I would encourage opponents of GMOs to call them out to the high heavens.
Please stop misrepresenting my arguments.
You’re right, I did move the goal posts as this is part of a larger conversation and that can’t be ignored. No vacuum exists. The nutrition question is debatable as there really hasn’t been long term studies -although id be willing go read otherwise. The harm at the farm level is nearing catastrophy and that in itself is worth passing of the bill. Monoculture is an awful farming methodology with serious ramifications upon food supply long term. That argument in itself has more weight than some convoluted free speech argument that has zero merit.
Let me summarize your position, please correct me where wrong – your neutral on health benefits of gmo. You believe food companies should self label and tort should eliminate falsities on labels. You see nothing wrong with food labeling now and believe in a market solution where the bad players will be held accountable by less sales or simple tort. Is that about right?
My contention – gmo health benefits are neutral but less likely to be good. I’m unaware of the ability to engineer more nutrition. The farm where these gmos are growing are seeing serious issues that are not sustainable. I believe in mandated clear labeling as there is very little evidence that people are capable of policing themselves and food companies will not be held accountable as they should be for advertisements on packages (“made with real crunch berries”) as tort isn’t a simple process. Nor cheap. Ever looked into Sueing a major company and costs involved?
Sound about right? We can disagree and I’m okay with that.
I think the class issue with food is a really good question. Our mayor did an experiment (I live in phx Arizona) living for a month on food stamps. He came back with some interesting observations but mostly he could afford to eat crap but fruits and veggies were pure indulgences that hurt his budget. As an aside, I’m not sure why one would expect to see food prices rise if gmo went away. As someone pointed out above the demand for non gmo may go up, but that’s more market volatility rather than actual cost of production spiking. It should be noted that our actual views on food costs are pretty wacky. Why should we expect to pay a dollar a pound for apples grown in China? That’s just an oddity.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j89FroqAAzZ2cx2M66hv7um-Gu_A
“DAMASCUS — President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, where more than 33,000 people have been killed in 19 months of conflict, issued a law on GM food Thursday to preserve human life, state-run SANA news agency reported.”
“The harm at the farm level is nearing catastrophy and that in itself is worth passing of the bill. Monoculture is an awful farming methodology with serious ramifications upon food supply long term. ”
If this is true, then why not pass a law that directly addresses this? I don’t see how requiring GMO labels is anything close to the most efficient choice, if preserving the environment/food supply is the goal.
EU has this law. The US is pissy about it as it violates free trade. Nevertheless the 12 year moratorium is up in the EU with gmo ban and likely individual countries can choose what they want to do with gmo. Some will some wont.
Why doesn’t it get banned here? Good question. I assume due to lobby but perhaps I’m negative on that. Perhaps it’s also related to the way testing is done on new products – tested by companies themselves who stand to profit by the gene patented products so their results are nearly always positive.
If outright ban isn’t warranted, why not allow people to be aware of the crops in the food. If it is as safe as those above assume, then people can choose to buy or not to buy. What exactly is the downside to the label? Free speech? Puhleze
“Free speech? Puhleze”
I’m glad you have such disdain for the 1st Amendment.
What will you say if a ban on GMOs raises food prices such that many things become unaffordable for poor people?
I’m not really interested in convincing you otherwise as your not buying what I’m selling. That’s fine. We can disagree.
The first amendment idea you have was put out to rest above. Labels already have standards. We can add and take away standards as situations change. I think you’re arguing from an incredibly thin position an frankly I’m not sure if you’re stubborn about being right or if you actually DON’T think it should be on a label. I’m not sure what harm is done to you by it being a mandate, so unless you can give a legitimate reason I think your just being stubborn – which I totally get.
We haven’t even discussed the ethical quandary of gene patents associated with GMO food.
I’ve addresses likely market fluctuations on price above. From what I can tell, cost per GMO/non GMO is roughly similar.
I have issues with many of the standards that exist for labeling. I think compulsory speech is a problem. I think free speech should be protected in all but the most extreme situations, which I don’t think GMOs/food labeling are. It’s not about being stubborn, it’s about having a particular set of values to which I adhere. You have not made your case well, as you constantly shift the goal posts and continually construct strawmen.