ASO Right To Know
August 12, 2015 8:49 AM Subscribe
Spreading awareness of Artificially Selected Organisms. They have a Facebook page full of images sure to go viral, and even a White House petition. [This is satire.]
Geez, teosinte is made from carbon compounds, JUST LIKE COAL!
posted by peeedro at 9:13 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 9:13 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
From the petition: "80% of Americans support mandatory labels on food containing DNA."
The trick is to move towards a DNA-free diet. It's been really great for weight-loss for me.
posted by Kabanos at 9:18 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
The trick is to move towards a DNA-free diet. It's been really great for weight-loss for me.
posted by Kabanos at 9:18 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
Who's behind this? I couldn't easily suss it out from the links.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:21 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:21 AM on August 12, 2015
Which backlash are we on again this go around? I'm starting to get confused... (Just kidding. I know, I know. We're on the anti-anti-GMO kick these days; gets hard to keep track and parse all these convolutions when you're trying to keep an eye on how these stories evolve over the longer term...)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:33 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 9:33 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nothing like smugness campaigns to help the political discourse...
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [5 favorites]
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.
posted by glaucon at 9:44 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by glaucon at 9:44 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
If it helps spread awareness that humans have been genetically modifying foods since the dawn of agriculture, it's a good thing. There are definitely reasons to be vigilant about policies related to genetic modification such as intellectual property rights, but the widespread opposition to GMOs in general is based on the sense they are "unnatural" and have "chemicals" in them.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:47 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:47 AM on August 12, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is Dihydrogen Monoxide all over again, isn't it?
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:47 AM on August 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:47 AM on August 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, all these ASOs do contain DHMO.
posted by GuyZero at 9:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 9:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [8 favorites]
But does it spread awareness? Or does it make people who fall for it (or who don't, but recognise they're being satirized),
1. feel that they've been ignored and mocked,
resulting in 2. a calcification/hardening of their views
and leaving them with 3. a tendency to regard the whole situation as even more polarised: you, bullies vs. me, person with (what I think is) a genuine concern you won't listen to? and
4. even less likely to read/listen to opposing view points for fear of being duped or mocked again?
I realise at the same time it does 5. make people who already agree with this POV feel smug and smarter-than-thou, which I guess is a plus for those people. But I am very unconvinced that this is about persuading anyone of anything other than their own superiority.
posted by AFII at 10:00 AM on August 12, 2015 [11 favorites]
1. feel that they've been ignored and mocked,
resulting in 2. a calcification/hardening of their views
and leaving them with 3. a tendency to regard the whole situation as even more polarised: you, bullies vs. me, person with (what I think is) a genuine concern you won't listen to? and
4. even less likely to read/listen to opposing view points for fear of being duped or mocked again?
I realise at the same time it does 5. make people who already agree with this POV feel smug and smarter-than-thou, which I guess is a plus for those people. But I am very unconvinced that this is about persuading anyone of anything other than their own superiority.
posted by AFII at 10:00 AM on August 12, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but this smells like astroturf.
posted by codacorolla at 10:06 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 10:06 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is just another reason to say no to arranged marriages. Do you want your kids to have ASO tattoos?
Though... I wonder if something like eHarmony qualifies too?
posted by bonehead at 10:10 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Though... I wonder if something like eHarmony qualifies too?
posted by bonehead at 10:10 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Christ: what an ASO!
posted by Kabanos at 10:14 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Kabanos at 10:14 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nothing like smugness campaigns to help the political discourse...Ugh, respectability politics.
posted by officer_fred at 10:24 AM on August 12, 2015
Dumb, unscientific people have dumb, unscientific reasons for opposing something. It is not rational, however, to support something merely because dumb, unscientific people oppose it. There are such people on every side of every debate.
tl;dr: anyone can beat up a scarecrow.
posted by gauche at 10:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
tl;dr: anyone can beat up a scarecrow.
posted by gauche at 10:39 AM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
a decent article, glaucon, thanks for linking to it.
posted by buffalo at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by buffalo at 10:45 AM on August 12, 2015
I'll be passing it along to my deeply anti-GMO friends, as the cognitive dissonance between walk-on-water climate scientists and evil-incompetent food scientists is not setting in for them. This won't work either, but it will make me feel better.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:51 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:51 AM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Whether this is intended to be a minor variant on the tired old dihydrogen monoxide troll, sort of exercise in self-congratulation, or something else, it's not just mean spirited, but it's poorly constructed as well.
There are actually some legitimate issues with "artificial selection," ranging from poor priorities (e.g., Red Delicious apples with their beautiful, deep red, tough, leathery, bitter-tasting but easily transportable skins) to outright evil adaptations designed to cosmetically appeal to people at the expense of pretty much everything else. They even mention purebred dogs in the About section, although they understate the case against it by mentioning only narcolepsy and hip dysplasia. People regularly breed dogs for cosmetic traits that directly cause serious health problems, including oversized heads that make live natural birth impossible to flat facial structures that cause severe, often fatal breathing problems, to adorable big buggy eyes that have a tendency to develop ulcers and other vision problems, up to and including eyeballs popping out of their sockets. And that's not even getting into the unrelated genetic problems that are introduced simply by nature of limited genetic pools.
So unless this is some sort of double-reverse meta troll or something, I give it a D+ tops.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:01 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
There are actually some legitimate issues with "artificial selection," ranging from poor priorities (e.g., Red Delicious apples with their beautiful, deep red, tough, leathery, bitter-tasting but easily transportable skins) to outright evil adaptations designed to cosmetically appeal to people at the expense of pretty much everything else. They even mention purebred dogs in the About section, although they understate the case against it by mentioning only narcolepsy and hip dysplasia. People regularly breed dogs for cosmetic traits that directly cause serious health problems, including oversized heads that make live natural birth impossible to flat facial structures that cause severe, often fatal breathing problems, to adorable big buggy eyes that have a tendency to develop ulcers and other vision problems, up to and including eyeballs popping out of their sockets. And that's not even getting into the unrelated genetic problems that are introduced simply by nature of limited genetic pools.
So unless this is some sort of double-reverse meta troll or something, I give it a D+ tops.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:01 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]
This is the new DHMO, isn't it? Definitely a troll.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:07 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:07 AM on August 12, 2015
Yes, Chocolate Pickle. There are many similarities. Just like if you don't understand chemistry you might not be able to think for yourself when confronted with DHMO, if you don't understand plant genetics you might not be equipped to form your own thoughts about the subject and instead rely on whoever is loudest to think for you. I don't see it as a troll, it is satire. It is saying "hey crazies, this is what you look like to people who are informed."
posted by hellphish at 11:24 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by hellphish at 11:24 AM on August 12, 2015
Quarks are the real hazard. Where are our lepton-based food products?
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 11:43 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 11:43 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are actually some legitimate issues with "artificial selection,"
I think the point is that it makes no sense to single out GMO for labeling and testing when "natural" methods are likely to create the problems you indicate. Don't ask how the apple was bred, ask if it is a good product.
Great link EMRJKC94, thanks.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:53 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the point is that it makes no sense to single out GMO for labeling and testing when "natural" methods are likely to create the problems you indicate. Don't ask how the apple was bred, ask if it is a good product.
Great link EMRJKC94, thanks.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:53 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Of course, I unironically support all anti-tomato propaganda, even if it is misleading.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:59 AM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Ugh, respectability politics.
Seriously? No. Look, even at its best, this "campaign" isn't anything that will enact political change - it is a hoax, and it's attempting to make a mockery of people. This is simply trolling.
Equating this to respectability politics is offensive to anyone and everyone who has had to actually deal with respectability politics in their lifetime - especially when that is presently a GIANT issue in the US with race.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:11 PM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seriously? No. Look, even at its best, this "campaign" isn't anything that will enact political change - it is a hoax, and it's attempting to make a mockery of people. This is simply trolling.
Equating this to respectability politics is offensive to anyone and everyone who has had to actually deal with respectability politics in their lifetime - especially when that is presently a GIANT issue in the US with race.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:11 PM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
If they meant to make some nuanced point about GM as a process not being inherently dangerous, they should have done that, and that argument could actually be fairly productive if it were made explicitly and in good faith. That would have the potential to open up some discussion about relevant issues.
They didn't do that, though. They designed a campaign apparently designed as some combination back-patting mockery and trolling effort, including a jokey White House petition soliciting people's real names.
Their tactics are weasely and childish, regardless of their motivations or whatever specific message they're trying to convey.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:16 PM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
They didn't do that, though. They designed a campaign apparently designed as some combination back-patting mockery and trolling effort, including a jokey White House petition soliciting people's real names.
Their tactics are weasely and childish, regardless of their motivations or whatever specific message they're trying to convey.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:16 PM on August 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
If they meant to make some nuanced point about GM as a process not being inherently dangerous, they should have done that, and that argument could actually be fairly productive if it were made explicitly and in good faith.
Once people get a conspiracy theory in their head that sounds plausible to them it's staggeringly difficult to argue them out of it. People have directly explained that GMO food is not inherently more dangerous than any other food a billion and a half times, but it's not getting through. Trying a satirical approach seems fine to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:48 PM on August 12, 2015
Once people get a conspiracy theory in their head that sounds plausible to them it's staggeringly difficult to argue them out of it. People have directly explained that GMO food is not inherently more dangerous than any other food a billion and a half times, but it's not getting through. Trying a satirical approach seems fine to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:48 PM on August 12, 2015
> I don't see it as a troll, it is satire. It is saying "hey crazies, this is what you look like to people who are informed."
Starting out with "hey crazies" doesn't bode well for the "not a troll" argument.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:55 PM on August 12, 2015
Starting out with "hey crazies" doesn't bode well for the "not a troll" argument.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:55 PM on August 12, 2015
If Global Warning Denialists want to gain more support, they need to link Climate Science to GMOs (or vaccines). "Whole Foods, now a division of Exxon Mobil"
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:15 PM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:15 PM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
GMO rice could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, study says
posted by Drinky Die at 1:16 PM on August 12, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 1:16 PM on August 12, 2015
Finally, any time you have to put a subscript of [this is satire] it's like explaining a joke -- If you have to do it, then it generally isn't very good.
There is satire that can mock an issue in or belief a way that it's clearly satire and also makes people think about it more. Then there is simply mockery that mocks the people themselves. While it may be satisfying to engage in the latter, it does nothing to challenge their beliefs, and exists purely for the satisfaction of those who enjoy the mockery. It may be more subtle or intellectual mockery at times - but that's still exactly what it is.
Don't get me wrong - I think the whole movement against GMO is absurd, but I just can't see how this fits in any category other than pure mockery. If that's you game - well, you totally have a right to participate. Just don't expect that to change anything other than some people getting a laugh at the expense of others.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:19 PM on August 12, 2015
There is satire that can mock an issue in or belief a way that it's clearly satire and also makes people think about it more. Then there is simply mockery that mocks the people themselves. While it may be satisfying to engage in the latter, it does nothing to challenge their beliefs, and exists purely for the satisfaction of those who enjoy the mockery. It may be more subtle or intellectual mockery at times - but that's still exactly what it is.
Don't get me wrong - I think the whole movement against GMO is absurd, but I just can't see how this fits in any category other than pure mockery. If that's you game - well, you totally have a right to participate. Just don't expect that to change anything other than some people getting a laugh at the expense of others.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:19 PM on August 12, 2015
officer_fred, I may have missed your sarcasm. I can't say I'm sure if it was sarcasm or not - realizing that does indeed make me laugh a bit, especially in the context of my comments.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:21 PM on August 12, 2015
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:21 PM on August 12, 2015
It fits in the genre of illustrating faulty logic by applying the faulty logic to another similar situation where we call acknowledge it doesn't work. I don't see why it's seen as offensive.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:21 PM on August 12, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 1:21 PM on August 12, 2015
Once people get a conspiracy theory in their head that sounds plausible to them it's staggeringly difficult to argue them out of it. People have directly explained that GMO food is not inherently more dangerous than any other food a billion and a half times, but it's not getting through. Trying a satirical approach seems fine to me.
First, I am not familiar with the conspiracy theory you're talking about, beyond the broad conspiracy that is capitalism, and that's pretty much undisputed.
Second, people have done a lot more than explain that GMO food is not inherently more dangerous than other food. In fact, you'll find a link to a very popular article right here in this thread with this right in the header title "Are GMOs safe? Yes." And people repeat that claim pretty much verbatim pretty regularly. Which is not the same as saying that GMOs or the GM process is not inherently unsafe. In fact, that claim is as absurd and as incorrect as the claim it rebuts. There is nothing inherently 'safe' about organisms created through genetic modification, and only a [pick a slur: dumb, unscientific, crazy, conspiracy theorist] person would believe such a thing.
Third, and most importantly, what exactly is this satire intended to 'approach'? What is the ultimate goal of this campaign? It clearly involved a fair amount of effort. Someone designed a bunch of lulzy memes and set up a website, a Facebook page, and a petition. Who did that, and what did they intend to accomplish?
posted by ernielundquist at 1:24 PM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
First, I am not familiar with the conspiracy theory you're talking about, beyond the broad conspiracy that is capitalism, and that's pretty much undisputed.
Second, people have done a lot more than explain that GMO food is not inherently more dangerous than other food. In fact, you'll find a link to a very popular article right here in this thread with this right in the header title "Are GMOs safe? Yes." And people repeat that claim pretty much verbatim pretty regularly. Which is not the same as saying that GMOs or the GM process is not inherently unsafe. In fact, that claim is as absurd and as incorrect as the claim it rebuts. There is nothing inherently 'safe' about organisms created through genetic modification, and only a [pick a slur: dumb, unscientific, crazy, conspiracy theorist] person would believe such a thing.
Third, and most importantly, what exactly is this satire intended to 'approach'? What is the ultimate goal of this campaign? It clearly involved a fair amount of effort. Someone designed a bunch of lulzy memes and set up a website, a Facebook page, and a petition. Who did that, and what did they intend to accomplish?
posted by ernielundquist at 1:24 PM on August 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
In fact, you'll find a link to a very popular article right here in this thread with this right in the header title "Are GMOs safe? Yes."
Where? I'm not seeing it.
Nobody is arguing GM can't produce something unsafe. You could conceivably intentionally bioengineer a deadly disease, forget accidentally making bad corn. If someone says GMOs are safe, it is shorthand for the GMOs that have been rigorously tested for safety being safe and not in need of things like warning labels, bans, or being excised from restaurant menus.
Third, and most importantly, what exactly is this satire intended to 'approach'?
The purpose is to use irony and ridicule to expose and criticize some of the flaws in the anti-GMO movement. The point of the satire is that the possibility of GM producing something unsafe is not in any way unique to GM processes.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:45 PM on August 12, 2015
Where? I'm not seeing it.
Nobody is arguing GM can't produce something unsafe. You could conceivably intentionally bioengineer a deadly disease, forget accidentally making bad corn. If someone says GMOs are safe, it is shorthand for the GMOs that have been rigorously tested for safety being safe and not in need of things like warning labels, bans, or being excised from restaurant menus.
Third, and most importantly, what exactly is this satire intended to 'approach'?
The purpose is to use irony and ridicule to expose and criticize some of the flaws in the anti-GMO movement. The point of the satire is that the possibility of GM producing something unsafe is not in any way unique to GM processes.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:45 PM on August 12, 2015
I was assuming it was part of some kind of PR campaign for Chipotle until Google explained for me why that alleged Mexican Grill was in the GMO news lately. So it's probably paid for by Monsanto I guess, that being the other corporate entity prominently inserted into the text the website is mostly plagiarized from.
posted by sfenders at 3:38 PM on August 12, 2015
posted by sfenders at 3:38 PM on August 12, 2015
officer_fred, I may have missed your sarcasm. I can't say I'm sure if it was sarcasm or not - realizing that does indeed make me laugh a bit, especially in the context of my comments.
Yeah, sorry, I was joking. Don't ask me what the hell the joke actually was, but it was a joke.
posted by officer_fred at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, sorry, I was joking. Don't ask me what the hell the joke actually was, but it was a joke.
posted by officer_fred at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
Derail: here's the thing I don't get about the "GMOs shouldn't be labeled because science" argument. There's no scientific reason behind a lot of what people won't eat. Why do meat eaters need to know that their animal protein is pig sourced rather than chicken sourced, for example? Religious prohibitions against eating certain foods or food combinations have absolutely no scientific basis! Yet most of us manage to hold the entirely reasonable view that food ingredient and sourcing labeling does not interfere with me making my own food consumption decisions, and is important to other people for reasons that are their own that don't affect me, so opposing food labeling in those other instances would just be intolerant, asshole behavior.
Sure, there's a little bit of difference between having all non-kosher/hallal/vegan/etc. foods labeled as such (opt-out labeling), versus only having some subset of foods that fall into those categories labeled as kosher/hallal/vegan/etc. (opt-in labelling). We generally see the latter in the US because kosher/hallal/vegan diets are both in the minority and newer, in the US. I would expect food in, eg., Saudi Aradia to be hallal unless explicitly labeled otherwise though (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). So one can view the debate on whether GMO labeling should be opt-in or opt-out as a cultural debate. (GMO corn, soy, and a handful of other crops far dominate the market share in the US and so are not currently the minority option in that sense for those particular crops; GMO versions are the minority in most other crops. And GMO food is not the historical standard in the US - scientifically, GMO refers to a specific set of genetic engineering techniques that have only been around for a few decades, that are distinct from ASO techniques, as it were. So by the standards we apply in other instances of whether food labeling is opt-in or opt-out, the anti-GMO/opt-in labeling argument is a tough sell. It really comes down to a cultural values argument around what we think should be the culturally accepted norm during this time of rapid change in our food supply systems. That's a fine argument to have, but bear in mind that it's a values argument, not a science argument.)
posted by eviemath at 4:48 AM on August 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sure, there's a little bit of difference between having all non-kosher/hallal/vegan/etc. foods labeled as such (opt-out labeling), versus only having some subset of foods that fall into those categories labeled as kosher/hallal/vegan/etc. (opt-in labelling). We generally see the latter in the US because kosher/hallal/vegan diets are both in the minority and newer, in the US. I would expect food in, eg., Saudi Aradia to be hallal unless explicitly labeled otherwise though (please correct me if I'm wrong on that). So one can view the debate on whether GMO labeling should be opt-in or opt-out as a cultural debate. (GMO corn, soy, and a handful of other crops far dominate the market share in the US and so are not currently the minority option in that sense for those particular crops; GMO versions are the minority in most other crops. And GMO food is not the historical standard in the US - scientifically, GMO refers to a specific set of genetic engineering techniques that have only been around for a few decades, that are distinct from ASO techniques, as it were. So by the standards we apply in other instances of whether food labeling is opt-in or opt-out, the anti-GMO/opt-in labeling argument is a tough sell. It really comes down to a cultural values argument around what we think should be the culturally accepted norm during this time of rapid change in our food supply systems. That's a fine argument to have, but bear in mind that it's a values argument, not a science argument.)
posted by eviemath at 4:48 AM on August 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Derail: here's the thing I don't get about the "GMOs shouldn't be labeled because science" argument.
I think you are mostly on target there. Labeling is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. The problem is that a lot of the proponents of labeling don't seem to concede that, even though it is true.
The opponents of labeling are saying, "Science does not say these should be labeled as dangerous, like you are claiming." That is what they are trying to address. The people who demand the labels aren't acting as if they have a religious or cultural reason, they argue as if there is scientific evidence backing the idea that the products are dangerous. That is where a lot of these issues come from. I would never be posting a bunch of anti-kosher comments. "Shellfish unclean? Look, we can put them under tough food inspection with the highest technological quality and see they are fine to eat! You idiots!" That's not the problem, and people who keep kosher don't generally make an effort to campaign for warning labels on non-kosher food because they need to convince people shellfish is uniquely dangerous as proven by science. They just use their influence to make sure the opt-in labeling is prominent, standardized, popular, and easy to recognize.
If the anti-GMO folks just said it was religious/cultural and campaigned only for the opt-in labeling...there is no problem here.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:26 AM on August 13, 2015
I think you are mostly on target there. Labeling is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. The problem is that a lot of the proponents of labeling don't seem to concede that, even though it is true.
The opponents of labeling are saying, "Science does not say these should be labeled as dangerous, like you are claiming." That is what they are trying to address. The people who demand the labels aren't acting as if they have a religious or cultural reason, they argue as if there is scientific evidence backing the idea that the products are dangerous. That is where a lot of these issues come from. I would never be posting a bunch of anti-kosher comments. "Shellfish unclean? Look, we can put them under tough food inspection with the highest technological quality and see they are fine to eat! You idiots!" That's not the problem, and people who keep kosher don't generally make an effort to campaign for warning labels on non-kosher food because they need to convince people shellfish is uniquely dangerous as proven by science. They just use their influence to make sure the opt-in labeling is prominent, standardized, popular, and easy to recognize.
If the anti-GMO folks just said it was religious/cultural and campaigned only for the opt-in labeling...there is no problem here.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:26 AM on August 13, 2015
What is the issue with labeling GMO food, exactly? That the anti-GMO people will boycott it? I see no problem in letting people know exactly what they are eating. Transparency! It is a good thing.
That the Anti-GMO movement has apparently aligned itself with anti-vaxxers is unfortunate but, IMHO, totally orthogonal to the issue.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:05 AM on August 13, 2015
That the Anti-GMO movement has apparently aligned itself with anti-vaxxers is unfortunate but, IMHO, totally orthogonal to the issue.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:05 AM on August 13, 2015
I'll eat pretty much anything up to, but not inclusive of, a chrome truck bumper, but Monsanto really is Evil Corp (I mean, if there is any possible way to make GMOs dangerous or evil, they will find it) so I'm all for anything that threatens their bottom line. Still, I am not going to condemn third-worlders to starvation, so, All Hail Our Evil Agricultural Overlords!
posted by Chitownfats at 7:51 AM on August 13, 2015
posted by Chitownfats at 7:51 AM on August 13, 2015
I'm all for anything that threatens their bottom line.
If it's about Monsanto, then the campaign should be for labeling all products that have been produced using Monsanto products. It will include a lot of organic food.
What is the issue with labeling GMO food, exactly?
That it promotes misinformation, not information.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2015
If it's about Monsanto, then the campaign should be for labeling all products that have been produced using Monsanto products. It will include a lot of organic food.
What is the issue with labeling GMO food, exactly?
That it promotes misinformation, not information.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2015
What is the issue with labeling GMO food, exactly?
That it promotes misinformation, not information.
So the argument is that people are generally too ignorant or misinformed to properly interpret such a label and that they are better off not knowing? I'm not anti-GMO, but I don't like the idea that I shouldn't be allowed to know if the food I'm eating is GMO. That strikes me as vaguely Orwellian.
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:12 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
That it promotes misinformation, not information.
So the argument is that people are generally too ignorant or misinformed to properly interpret such a label and that they are better off not knowing? I'm not anti-GMO, but I don't like the idea that I shouldn't be allowed to know if the food I'm eating is GMO. That strikes me as vaguely Orwellian.
posted by grumpybear69 at 4:12 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, people correctly understand that warning labels are for things that are dangerous, not for trying to make products you don't like look bad with an appeal to nature. The reason organic companies fund the support for those ballot measures isn't altruism, they are trying to damage a business competitor.
Nobody is forbidding anybody from avoiding GMO food if they want, the opt-in labels work perfectly fine. I can't even find a supermarket block of tofu without one.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:19 PM on August 13, 2015
Nobody is forbidding anybody from avoiding GMO food if they want, the opt-in labels work perfectly fine. I can't even find a supermarket block of tofu without one.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:19 PM on August 13, 2015
So the argument is that people are generally too ignorant or misinformed to properly interpret such a label and that they are better off not knowing?
If you look at the current fad of gluten-free foods, there is a small number of people who are made ill by consuming gluten, but that doesn't explain why so many people are making pointless changes in their diets to avoid glutens. A gluten-free label sends a signal to poorly informed consumers.
A GMO food could be healthier or more environmentally sensitive than a similar food made through traditional breeding methods, but the consumer isn't going to know how to evaluate that claim or make an informed choice. A non-GMO label just muddies the water because most people have an unfounded belief that GMO's are bad.
The FDA and USDA have a responsibility to be guided by the best available science, not hype.
Look at the rBST labeling for an example. Dairy products can be labeled that it came from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones, but there's always an asterisk telling you the milk is the same anyway.
posted by peeedro at 4:31 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you look at the current fad of gluten-free foods, there is a small number of people who are made ill by consuming gluten, but that doesn't explain why so many people are making pointless changes in their diets to avoid glutens. A gluten-free label sends a signal to poorly informed consumers.
A GMO food could be healthier or more environmentally sensitive than a similar food made through traditional breeding methods, but the consumer isn't going to know how to evaluate that claim or make an informed choice. A non-GMO label just muddies the water because most people have an unfounded belief that GMO's are bad.
The FDA and USDA have a responsibility to be guided by the best available science, not hype.
Look at the rBST labeling for an example. Dairy products can be labeled that it came from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones, but there's always an asterisk telling you the milk is the same anyway.
posted by peeedro at 4:31 PM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Actually, the gluten free thing brings up a point that I think is relevant in a sense.
I'd sort of gone along with the popular notion that people not diagnosed with celiac disease who were on gluten free diets were being silly and uninformed, but then I saw a story about some improved diagnosis method that was able to catch previously undiagnosed celiac, which didn't fit in with my understanding. So I looked it up, and celiac disease manifests in different ways for different people, and can be difficult to diagnose in cases in which the symptoms don't manifest as obviously as they do in the people who end up in the ER every time they ingest some gluten. Some people apparently have mild or even nonexistent symptoms.
Which raises the possibility that at least some of those people who say they feel better on a gluten free diet are telling the truth, and they do have undiagnosed celiac disease.
So I was silently judging people as ignorant about something I was pretty ignorant about myself. For a lot of people, it can be very difficult to get quality health care, so they're kind of left to their own devices. If someone feels better when they cut gluten out of their diet, who is to say they don't? They could have undiagnosed celiac disease, but what does it even matter if it's just a placebo effect, or if it's just one in a series of things they're trying to help themselves feel better? People have a right to make decisions for themselves, even if you don't approve of their reasoning.
With the rBST labeling, Monsanto fought long and hard to have optional rBST free labeling prohibited, based on arguments that completely ignored many of the objections people had to its use, casting it all as concern for human health and safety, as though people were incapable of making choices based on anything other than their own direct personal interests.
People have the right to make their own choices about what they put in their bodies, and even moreso about what they don't. So if most people want some specific information about what their food consists of and how it was produced, they deserve to have that information.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:45 PM on August 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd sort of gone along with the popular notion that people not diagnosed with celiac disease who were on gluten free diets were being silly and uninformed, but then I saw a story about some improved diagnosis method that was able to catch previously undiagnosed celiac, which didn't fit in with my understanding. So I looked it up, and celiac disease manifests in different ways for different people, and can be difficult to diagnose in cases in which the symptoms don't manifest as obviously as they do in the people who end up in the ER every time they ingest some gluten. Some people apparently have mild or even nonexistent symptoms.
Which raises the possibility that at least some of those people who say they feel better on a gluten free diet are telling the truth, and they do have undiagnosed celiac disease.
So I was silently judging people as ignorant about something I was pretty ignorant about myself. For a lot of people, it can be very difficult to get quality health care, so they're kind of left to their own devices. If someone feels better when they cut gluten out of their diet, who is to say they don't? They could have undiagnosed celiac disease, but what does it even matter if it's just a placebo effect, or if it's just one in a series of things they're trying to help themselves feel better? People have a right to make decisions for themselves, even if you don't approve of their reasoning.
With the rBST labeling, Monsanto fought long and hard to have optional rBST free labeling prohibited, based on arguments that completely ignored many of the objections people had to its use, casting it all as concern for human health and safety, as though people were incapable of making choices based on anything other than their own direct personal interests.
People have the right to make their own choices about what they put in their bodies, and even moreso about what they don't. So if most people want some specific information about what their food consists of and how it was produced, they deserve to have that information.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:45 PM on August 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
Which raises the possibility that at least some of those people who say they feel better on a gluten free diet are telling the truth, and they do have undiagnosed celiac disease.
Oh, they are telling the truth, but undiagnosed celiac disease isn't the cause. FODMAPs are probably the culprit and since gluten-containing foods tend to have high levels of FODMAPs, avoiding gluten avoids a lot of FODMAPs.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:48 PM on August 14, 2015
Oh, they are telling the truth, but undiagnosed celiac disease isn't the cause. FODMAPs are probably the culprit and since gluten-containing foods tend to have high levels of FODMAPs, avoiding gluten avoids a lot of FODMAPs.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:48 PM on August 14, 2015
I would be in favor of a mandatory label for gluten, because it actually poses a danger to some people.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 PM on August 14, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 PM on August 14, 2015
Many foods already list wheat as an input if present.
posted by GuyZero at 2:23 PM on August 14, 2015
posted by GuyZero at 2:23 PM on August 14, 2015
I would be in favor of a mandatory label for gluten, because it actually poses a danger to some people.
It's been made mandatory since 2006 by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act.
posted by peeedro at 3:37 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's been made mandatory since 2006 by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act.
posted by peeedro at 3:37 PM on August 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was not aware those labels were by law. Good law is good!
posted by Drinky Die at 4:11 PM on August 15, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 4:11 PM on August 15, 2015
With the rBST labeling, Monsanto fought long and hard to have optional rBST free labeling prohibited, based on arguments that completely ignored many of the objections people had to its use, casting it all as concern for human health and safety, as though people were incapable of making choices based on anything other than their own direct personal interests.
What kind of objections are you talking about? With no evidence that it affects human health or food safety, rBST is bad because why?
There's no evidence that milk from rBST treated cows is any different from non-rBST treated cows. The best available science shows no difference. But rBST treated cows produce more milk with less feed, less pasture, less environmental impact, and less greenhouse gas emissions [citation]. Keep in mind the food your eat is a main driver of climate change. If you want to drink milk or eat cheese and give a shit about climate change, rBST doesn't look so bad.
There is a difference in the health outcome [pdf] of the cow.
I've worked on a dairy farm (a non-rBST farm) and I've worked with cows suffering from mastitis. There's nothing worse than a sick cow suffering from a painful infection and a swollen udder. She needs to be milked, it's a difficult and painful process for you both, and then throw that milk away. Nobody wins, it hurts both animal and farmer to go through the motions. rBST makes mastitis at least 25% more likely, and that's not cool with me. Plus, you can guess what happens to a perpetually sick dairy cow (a visit from Dr. 30-06).
So when I have a choice, I choose the non-rBST dairy product because I give a shit and want to reward the farmer and dairy processor who will integrate the animal welfare issue into the profit equation. It's an informed, yet imperfect decision I make.
But, good luck convincing the USDA and FDA that cow well-being is part of their core mission. Really, who will stand up for for animal welfare in the dairy aisle when the butcher is still in business?
People have the right to make their own choices about what they put in their bodies, and even moreso about what they don't. So if most people want some specific information about what their food consists of and how it was produced, they deserve to have that information.
I hear you and this is the best argument for GMO labeling that I've heard. But why fight this fight, why GMO's? Don't you care about about what fertilizers and pesticides are applied to the food you eat? Don't you care about fair wages and working conditions for the agricultural workers harvesting and processing your food? Don't you care about sustainable use of surface water or aquifers to grow your food? Don't you care about land use issues, monocultures, crop rotations, and native wildlife where your food is grown? Unlike the GMO question, these issues actually make a difference to you, your food, the people who grow it, and the land it's grown on.
There are no shortage of valid criticisms of modern agriculture; but why are they passed over for the easy, woo-woo, consumer-identity driven anti-GMO complaints? Because it's a bunch of hard problems with imperfect solutions. Going GMO free isn't going to fix anything.
posted by peeedro at 1:47 AM on August 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
What kind of objections are you talking about? With no evidence that it affects human health or food safety, rBST is bad because why?
There's no evidence that milk from rBST treated cows is any different from non-rBST treated cows. The best available science shows no difference. But rBST treated cows produce more milk with less feed, less pasture, less environmental impact, and less greenhouse gas emissions [citation]. Keep in mind the food your eat is a main driver of climate change. If you want to drink milk or eat cheese and give a shit about climate change, rBST doesn't look so bad.
There is a difference in the health outcome [pdf] of the cow.
I've worked on a dairy farm (a non-rBST farm) and I've worked with cows suffering from mastitis. There's nothing worse than a sick cow suffering from a painful infection and a swollen udder. She needs to be milked, it's a difficult and painful process for you both, and then throw that milk away. Nobody wins, it hurts both animal and farmer to go through the motions. rBST makes mastitis at least 25% more likely, and that's not cool with me. Plus, you can guess what happens to a perpetually sick dairy cow (a visit from Dr. 30-06).
So when I have a choice, I choose the non-rBST dairy product because I give a shit and want to reward the farmer and dairy processor who will integrate the animal welfare issue into the profit equation. It's an informed, yet imperfect decision I make.
But, good luck convincing the USDA and FDA that cow well-being is part of their core mission. Really, who will stand up for for animal welfare in the dairy aisle when the butcher is still in business?
People have the right to make their own choices about what they put in their bodies, and even moreso about what they don't. So if most people want some specific information about what their food consists of and how it was produced, they deserve to have that information.
I hear you and this is the best argument for GMO labeling that I've heard. But why fight this fight, why GMO's? Don't you care about about what fertilizers and pesticides are applied to the food you eat? Don't you care about fair wages and working conditions for the agricultural workers harvesting and processing your food? Don't you care about sustainable use of surface water or aquifers to grow your food? Don't you care about land use issues, monocultures, crop rotations, and native wildlife where your food is grown? Unlike the GMO question, these issues actually make a difference to you, your food, the people who grow it, and the land it's grown on.
There are no shortage of valid criticisms of modern agriculture; but why are they passed over for the easy, woo-woo, consumer-identity driven anti-GMO complaints? Because it's a bunch of hard problems with imperfect solutions. Going GMO free isn't going to fix anything.
posted by peeedro at 1:47 AM on August 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't you care about about what fertilizers and pesticides are applied to the food you eat?
Yes. All food packaging should include a list of ingredients, the specific genes that were modified in any genetically modified ones, nutritional information, the brand names and chemical formulae of any pesticides and fertilizer involved, a schematic description of the living conditions of animals that contributed, a brief natural history of all land used, and full biographies of all workers employed in the production of each ingredient and the final product.
posted by sfenders at 6:15 AM on August 16, 2015
Yes. All food packaging should include a list of ingredients, the specific genes that were modified in any genetically modified ones, nutritional information, the brand names and chemical formulae of any pesticides and fertilizer involved, a schematic description of the living conditions of animals that contributed, a brief natural history of all land used, and full biographies of all workers employed in the production of each ingredient and the final product.
posted by sfenders at 6:15 AM on August 16, 2015
But why fight this fight, why GMO's? Don't you care about about what fertilizers and pesticides are applied to the food you eat?
Whoa, wait a minute. I am not talking about my personal preferences here, and I think I have been pretty clear about that. (Yes, I was referring to concern for cows with the rBST example. Sorry. I thought that was clearer. A lot of people avoid rBST-produced products for that reason and are perfectly aware that it is not harmful to their own health.)
I'm talking about giving people the information they want, and letting them make their own choices. If GMOs were all labeled, it probably wouldn't change much of anything about what I personally buy. That specifically is not something I care about. But I don't think that my opinions are of any great import to others' choices, nor do I have a huge driving interest in speculating about their motivations or making hostile assumptions about them. That's really the thing. I have no need to convince other people to care or not care about the same things I do or to share my opinions, even when I think I'm right about their personal choices that don't hurt others.
I support labeling because people want it, and I don't feel a need to vet other people's choices or to police their motivations for making them.
I just don't see a good reason not to do it.
Say all GMOs were labeled. What would be the outcome of that? I suppose there'd be some negligible cost for modifying food labels.
And then what? It's likely a lot of people would realize that there are already more GMOs in the foodstream than they realized. Maybe some of them would choose non-GMOs over GMOs, some wouldn't, some might show a slight preference for non-GMO products, and fine-tune their buying habits to avoid certain specific GMO products. I mean, will some food producers making GMOs suffer market losses? Yeah, maybe, but I don't care. That's their problem. I'm not going to support keeping the public ignorant of something they want to know to protect food producers' profits.
People aren't going to stop buying or eating food. Maybe some GMO products might take a hit, and non-GMO alternatives would get a boost. Maybe not. People buying less GMOs in the grocery store also isn't going to cause progress to grind to a halt or result in negative outcomes for any kind of humanitarian efforts or anything like that. Really, I don't think it would make a huge difference in any sphere beyond consumers' personal comfort levels.
So what is the big deal?
I mean, seriously, people make silly and ill-advised choices all the time, based on all kinds of irrational things. I am OK with letting them do that, with giving them the information they want, and letting them make their own choices. I don't feel any driving need to run around interrogating people about why they do what they do, and I certainly don't have an interest in taking those choices away from them, even when I think I know better.
OK, true story: I knew a guy who saw some really big chicken eggs after he'd dropped some acid, and had imagined in great, vivid detail how painful it must have been to lay an egg that big. He knew it didn't make sense, but he still, many many years later, wouldn't buy large chicken eggs. It just bugged him. That guy avoiding too-large eggs didn't keep me up nights. I didn't feel a need to challenge him or try to trick him into eating really big chicken eggs. It was silly, but that's OK. Lots of things are. And if, say, 60% of Americans dropped that same acid and then looked at big chicken eggs and had bad trips about it, and if subsequently they voted to require labeling on foods that contained eggs larger than a certain diameter or something, I would be OK with that as well. I cannot imagine why I wouldn't be. I might suggest that it would make more sense to label eggs based on relative sizes of the chicken and the egg, but if the consensus was that no, it was really just some absolute measurement that caused people to suffer from phantom cloaca pains or something, and they wanted them labeled, I would be fine with telling people that, because that is what they wanted to know.
It really disturbs me how passionately some will argue to prevent people from getting the information they're asking for because they think they don't deserve to know. This is not something that affects others. It's not like vaccines. Labeling is not outlawing. The only harm that could plausibly come from mandating labeling might be some negligible damage to certain food producers' bottom line, and that damage would be a benefit to others'.
It is not my job to police others' choices about the way they live their lives, particularly when it comes to something like what they put in their bodies. If enough people are concerned or uncomfortable about GMOs and want to avoid them, I'm not about to tell them they're not allowed to be.
I just apparently have an unusually high bar for policing people's personal choices like that. All people are asking for is a little disclosure. It's none of my business what they do with the information they're asking for.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:18 AM on August 16, 2015
Whoa, wait a minute. I am not talking about my personal preferences here, and I think I have been pretty clear about that. (Yes, I was referring to concern for cows with the rBST example. Sorry. I thought that was clearer. A lot of people avoid rBST-produced products for that reason and are perfectly aware that it is not harmful to their own health.)
I'm talking about giving people the information they want, and letting them make their own choices. If GMOs were all labeled, it probably wouldn't change much of anything about what I personally buy. That specifically is not something I care about. But I don't think that my opinions are of any great import to others' choices, nor do I have a huge driving interest in speculating about their motivations or making hostile assumptions about them. That's really the thing. I have no need to convince other people to care or not care about the same things I do or to share my opinions, even when I think I'm right about their personal choices that don't hurt others.
I support labeling because people want it, and I don't feel a need to vet other people's choices or to police their motivations for making them.
I just don't see a good reason not to do it.
Say all GMOs were labeled. What would be the outcome of that? I suppose there'd be some negligible cost for modifying food labels.
And then what? It's likely a lot of people would realize that there are already more GMOs in the foodstream than they realized. Maybe some of them would choose non-GMOs over GMOs, some wouldn't, some might show a slight preference for non-GMO products, and fine-tune their buying habits to avoid certain specific GMO products. I mean, will some food producers making GMOs suffer market losses? Yeah, maybe, but I don't care. That's their problem. I'm not going to support keeping the public ignorant of something they want to know to protect food producers' profits.
People aren't going to stop buying or eating food. Maybe some GMO products might take a hit, and non-GMO alternatives would get a boost. Maybe not. People buying less GMOs in the grocery store also isn't going to cause progress to grind to a halt or result in negative outcomes for any kind of humanitarian efforts or anything like that. Really, I don't think it would make a huge difference in any sphere beyond consumers' personal comfort levels.
So what is the big deal?
I mean, seriously, people make silly and ill-advised choices all the time, based on all kinds of irrational things. I am OK with letting them do that, with giving them the information they want, and letting them make their own choices. I don't feel any driving need to run around interrogating people about why they do what they do, and I certainly don't have an interest in taking those choices away from them, even when I think I know better.
OK, true story: I knew a guy who saw some really big chicken eggs after he'd dropped some acid, and had imagined in great, vivid detail how painful it must have been to lay an egg that big. He knew it didn't make sense, but he still, many many years later, wouldn't buy large chicken eggs. It just bugged him. That guy avoiding too-large eggs didn't keep me up nights. I didn't feel a need to challenge him or try to trick him into eating really big chicken eggs. It was silly, but that's OK. Lots of things are. And if, say, 60% of Americans dropped that same acid and then looked at big chicken eggs and had bad trips about it, and if subsequently they voted to require labeling on foods that contained eggs larger than a certain diameter or something, I would be OK with that as well. I cannot imagine why I wouldn't be. I might suggest that it would make more sense to label eggs based on relative sizes of the chicken and the egg, but if the consensus was that no, it was really just some absolute measurement that caused people to suffer from phantom cloaca pains or something, and they wanted them labeled, I would be fine with telling people that, because that is what they wanted to know.
It really disturbs me how passionately some will argue to prevent people from getting the information they're asking for because they think they don't deserve to know. This is not something that affects others. It's not like vaccines. Labeling is not outlawing. The only harm that could plausibly come from mandating labeling might be some negligible damage to certain food producers' bottom line, and that damage would be a benefit to others'.
It is not my job to police others' choices about the way they live their lives, particularly when it comes to something like what they put in their bodies. If enough people are concerned or uncomfortable about GMOs and want to avoid them, I'm not about to tell them they're not allowed to be.
I just apparently have an unusually high bar for policing people's personal choices like that. All people are asking for is a little disclosure. It's none of my business what they do with the information they're asking for.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:18 AM on August 16, 2015
« Older “What makes America special is our capacity to... | Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cosmic.osmo at 9:10 AM on August 12, 2015 [10 favorites]