I522 - Pros and Cons

[Kimmo]

This issue reminds me of the monorail, when well meaning initiative authors thought it would be a good idea for millions of Washingtonians to take sides on the efficacy of a specific technology, rather than vote for policies that address the broader issue (moving people efficiently from A to B, in that case).

 

tell me how this would play out in this particular case (gmo). what policies would address the broader issues, and what do you see as the broader issues?

 

Now, initiative authors are asking us to vote for a warning label (that's what it is, not an ingredients label) for a whole range of technologies few of them seem to understand - and waste an enormous amount of precious (unfunded) public money - and far more private money in a faltering economy - to do what, exactly?

 

what is the "whole range of technologies" you speak of? are we not speaking of laboratory-based modification of plant and animal genes?

 

and what is your best guess of the costs? what i hear is around a million for enforcement for the first year: 20C per washingtonian?

 

and what it would do is show americans if the food they are buying has lab-modified genetic material, right? is this a trick question?

 

If activists need not provide proof of harm for their expensive pet projects, and lets face it, that's what this is, where is this going to go?

 

what would be your guess about where this would go? what would be next?

[tvashtarkatena]

Reread the thread. It's all there. All I've got, anyway.

 

The range of technologies is specifically listed in the initiative. You've read the initiative, of course.

 

The harms are listed, too - they're just not supported by credible evidence.

 

To me, the larger issue is Factory Farming and monoculture - too resource (oil) intensive and too hard on the topsoil (poisons and erosion). The agricultural industry is actually working hard to address these issues. That said, the specifics of farming is way beyond my pay grade. Some obvious reforms do come to mind, however:

 

End schedule crop subsidies

End schedule crop subsidies

End schedule crop subsidies

 

being my top 3.

 

Also - end gov. involvement with corn based biofuels - subsidize the development of sustainable cellulose based bio fuels instead. Hemp seed comes to mind.

 

Tax incentives for sustainable agriculture. Examples include rotating pasture dairy farms, and the development of perennial crops over annuals (this is well under way - 30% of our crops are already perennial).

 

Reforming city council election systems to eliminate at large elections (how many Mexican Americans are on the Yakima City Council, exactly?) so that communities, not corporations, have local control over their land and environment.

 

These reforms seem to be more to the point regarding sustainability to me. GMO is just another sideshow IMO.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

Sorry, not there. Not that I could find.

 

And, it's not a warning label.

 

It simply says what's in the package. Genetically modified soy beans, for example. Which are not the same as non-modified soy beans (isn't there even a test that can test if an oil is from GM soybeans?).

[tvashtarkatena]

It is very much a warning label. If it wasn't, the initiative would have simply required that it be appended to existing FDA labeling, instead of appearing prominently on the package front.

 

The Debbilz in the Detailz.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

People who demand that their food be produced in a relatively sustainable way already have the Organic Label. 100% Organic requires zero GMO already.

 

Any product can voluntary label itself GMO Free.

 

No need for this waste of time and money - which, after all, hurts smaller producers the most. Monsanto isn't even gonna notice.

 

 

[Kimmo]

That's fine that any product can be labeled GMO Free, and we are certainly seeing more of this, but should the onus be on these producers?

 

For me there is no question as to who should bear this onus: the one that puts the ingredient in the product.

 

Meaning, if I put gm ingredients into a product, I should damn well have to say so.

[tvashtarkatena]

Onus? What onus?

 

Bragging about how wonderful your product is on the label is standard marketing 101. If there's a rising tide (there is) of GMO labeling as a marketing strategy, what's the problem we need to make every food biz who sells in WA jump through this expensive hoop again?

 

If that's your marketing strategy, cool. If not - you shouldn't be forced to tell everyone that's NOT your marketing strategy.

 

Very weird logic at work here. Let's make everyone in the world jump through a hoop to support a marketing strategy for 5% of producers. Hmmmm...not a good use of state power, tax dollars, or private money IMO.

 

I know a lot of small business owners. An overly complex regulatory and taxation system is killing them. Automation isn't the only thing slowing our economic growth. Government dysfuction is also a leading cause.

 

In general, I'm always for the least draconian solution to every problem. If the solution is trending upward naturally already, let continue and be happy.

Edited October 27, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

what I'm seeing as the weird logic here is not requiring someone to say what's in the food they produce.

 

Meaning: you put gmo into the food you made? Tell us.

[tvashtarkatena]

tell you, you mean. buy organic. GMO isnt an ingredient. its a tecnology used to create ingredients which are often indistinguishable nutritionally from their non GMO counterparts. the organic label already covers that pretty well. sorry, this is a hippy pet project attempting to get mandated crowdsource funding.

[Kimmo]

Yes. Tell me.

 

Along with the 90%+ that also want to know.

 

Maybe you don't care? That's cool. Don't try to keep the 90% that do prisoner of your desire for ignorance.

 

The whole thing is pretty simple really. With a whole lot of obfuscation thrown in by the oh 5 corporations fighting the thing.

 

Just put a label on the foods and be done with it!

[Kimmo]

And one more for JayB, from I'd imagine someone he knows:

 

that von mises dude.

 

 

[Crux]

Just put a label on the foods and be done with it!

 

Be done with what?

[JayB]

In the face of what you posted above, what do you make of concerns expressed by other scientists, perhaps most notedly by the Union of Concerned Scientists?

 

Here's a link to an interview by someone involved with the organization (please don't let her photo scare you off):

 

scary face

 

I'd like to hear your honest thoughts on the interview.

 

 

And, while I certainly have concerns myself over a technology quite in its infancy being promoted and applied across the board by corporations inherently driven by the profit motive, I'm also interested in the heuristics of this, and any, situation, especially when quotes such as this are used:

 

If an overwhelming majority of experts say something is true, then any sensible non-expert should assume that they are probably right. (from the poster you pinned up.)

 

Who is behind that poster btw? I googled www.axismundionline.com (credit on lower right of poster) and got decent design ideas for our yard, but I couldn't find who is behind it.

 

No hay muy tiempo so:

 

1)Political organization rather than a scientific organization.

 

2)Not impressed with the expertise or the argumentation. Even if I was, giving more weight to a single professional advocate/organization over the combined weight of the scientific institutions above and the known universe of high-quality scientific literature is not the way to go if you are want to have an ethically sound basis for your beliefs.

 

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

 

3)No idea who is behind the poster. Unless someone has evidence that demonstrates that it misrepresents the central findings of the institutions identified in the image, who cares?

 

4)Won't have any more time to dedicate to this thread. Enjoy perusing the literature if you get around to it.

 

~Toodles.

[Kimmo]

No hay muy tiempo so:

 

1)Political organization rather than a scientific organization.

 

2)Not impressed with the expertise or the argumentation. Even if I was, giving more weight to a single professional advocate/organization over the combined weight of the scientific institutions above and the known universe of high-quality scientific literature is not the way to go if you are want to have an ethically sound basis for your beliefs.

 

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

 

3)No idea who is behind the poster. Unless someone has evidence that demonstrates that it misrepresents the central findings of the institutions identified in the image, who cares?

 

4)Won't have any more time to dedicate to this thread. Enjoy perusing the literature if you get around to it.

 

~Toodles.

 

1. It seems only those who oppose their view dismiss them as a "political organization".

 

It's headed by James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, staffed by scientists, and advocates a more tempered and reflected position at the nexus where politics and science meet, imo.

 

2. not sure what you weren't "impressed" with specifically. And also not sure what your point is about "giving more weight" to a particular organization vs another. If an argument is valid (show where it isn't), the issue isn't about any organization.

 

3. one might care because it's a neat pr trick to collate a bunch of sound bites from various organizations to paint a picture that looks much rosier than after the makeup comes off.

 

4. I did peruse. Didn't find a whole bunch. Just the defense of a bunch of conclusions based on short term safety studies.

 

thanks tho cuz i did enjoy the reading, and where the links took me. the following quote in particular rang a nice tone (bonus points if you name the author without the google):

 

Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

that 90% figure gets trotted out as a groupthink bludgeon when the science inevitably comes up short, but like the science, it, too, is crap. A similar measure failed in CA and is too close to call in WA, so those are the actual numbers when taxpayer and private costs, including the opportunity cost of not doing things that are more important, are considered. Most people will say Sure, why not? if they are mislead into believing its free. Thus figure is just one more junk science data point frim proponents who so far have offered an understandably skeptical public little else. Bad policy and dishonest campaigns do tend to go together.

 

A poll is a prediction based on how the question is framed. if 90% of WA wanted this, then why is it 50/50 right now? Hmmmm.

 

A vote is a decision on the actual initiative-ie, it is reality.

Edited October 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Just put a label on the foods and be done with it!

 

Be done with what?

 

Be done with the debate because this poster is losing. Groupthink 101 tactic.

 

Remember "Lets roll!" ?

[rob]

[video:youtube]

[Kimmo]

that 90% figure gets trotted out as a groupthink bludgeon when the science inevitably comes up short, but like the science, it, too, is crap.

 

what science are you referring to? this is where you get to actually substantiate your assertions.

 

And are you disputing that 90% of people would want to know if there is GMO in what they eat?

 

Sure, those numbers will change once Monsanto and their spokesmen (nice work!) start their obfuscations and apocalyptic scaremongering, but I'd wager nearly 100% of people would want to know if they are eating GM foods.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Kimmo

[Kimmo]

Just put a label on the foods and be done with it!

 

Be done with what?

 

Be done with the debate because this poster is losing. Groupthink 101 tactic.

 

Remember "Lets roll!" ?

 

A debate needs one side actually responding to specifics posed by the other, and since you seem unable to do this, yes I'd agree, the debate is over.

[tvashtarkatena]

In the end, its just a label. My GF's voting yes, so I can't get too wrapped around the axle about this one.

 

 

[Kimmo]

jeez, finally.

 

see you at the victory party.

[Kimmo]

worth watching:

 

[video:youtube]

[prole]

perhaps paradoxically, I also strongly agree with the Citizens United decision. Unlike the way its been popularly characterized - it was a classic, cut and dry free speech case. At issue was about an uncoordinated (with any campaign) non profit that showed a movie about Hilz (it could have been made for free and the case wouldn't have changed) within a 'blackout' period specified by McCain Feingold - within 3 months of an election.

 

In what might have been a cut and dry case to begin with, Citizens United was blown completely out of proportion by the conservatives on the court and unnecessarily 'metasticized' into the much broader, more damaging piece of judicial activism it became.

 

Nice New Yorker piece on that here.

 

Nor did the dissenting justices think the case, as it evolved, was the narrow, cut and dry, vacuum sealed narrative you're peddling, but hey, maybe they haven't seen your work on CC.com...

 

Wiki Synopsis:

Dissent

 

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[34] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90 page dissent from the bench.[35] Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He wrote: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

 

Justice Stevens also argued that the Court addressed a question not raised by the litigants when it found BCRA §203 to be facially unconstitutional, and that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law".[29] He argued that the majority had expanded the scope beyond the questions presented by the appellant and that therefore a sufficient record for judging the case did not exist. Stevens argued that at a minimum the Court should have remanded the case for a fact-finding hearing, and that the majority did not consider other compilations of data, such as the Congressional record for justifying BCRA §203.

 

Stevens referenced a number of major First Amendment cases to argue that the Court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against "the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection".[36] After recognizing that in Buckley v. Valeo the Court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources, Stevens argued that nevertheless Buckley recognized the legitimacy of "prophylactic" measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of "corruption" to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that Buckley left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation.[29] Although the majority echoed many of the arguments in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Stevens argued that the majority opinion contradicted the reasoning of other campaign finance cases – in particular, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission – and found it telling that the majority, when citing such cases, referenced mainly dissenting opinions.

 

Stevens' lengthy dissent specifically sought to address a number of the majority's central arguments:

 

First, Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the possibility for corruption outside of strict quid pro quo exchanges. Stevens referenced facts from a previous BCRA challenge to argue that, even if the exchange of votes for expenditures could not be shown, contributors gain favorable political access from such expenditures.[29] The majority considered access to be insufficient justification for limiting speech rights.

 

Stevens, however, argued that in the past, even when striking down a ban on corporate independent expenditures, the Court "never suggested that such quid pro quo debts must take the form of outright vote buying or bribes" (Bellotti). Buckley, he claimed, also acknowledged that large independent expenditures present the same dangers as quid pro quo arrangements, although Buckley struck down limits on such independent expenditures. Using the record from a previous BCRA §203 challenge, he argued that independent expenditures were sometimes a factor in gaining political access and concluded that large independent expenditures generate more influence than direct campaign contributions.[29] Furthermore, Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage. Stevens supported his argument by citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,[37] where the Court held that $3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge's impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender. Stevens argued that it was contradictory for the majority to ignore the same risks in legislative and executive elections, and argued that the majority opinion would exacerbate the problem presented in Caperton because of the number of states with judicial elections and increased spending in judicial races.

 

Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the "appearance of corruption" in elections. Earlier cases, including Buckley and Bellotti, recognized the importance of public confidence in democracy. Stevens cited recent data indicating that 80% of the public view corporate independent expenditures as a method used to gain unfair legislative access.[29] Stevens predicted that if the public believes that corporations dominate elections, disaffected voters will stop participating.

 

Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

 

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[29] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[38] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

 

Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority's central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Relying on Austin, Stevens argued that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described "unfair corporate influence" as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the "marketplace of ideas".[29] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.

 

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view.

 

Fifth, Stevens criticized the majority's fear that the government could use BCRA §203 to censor the media. The focus placed on this hypothetical fear made no sense to Stevens because it did not relate to the facts of this case—if the government actually attempted to apply BCRA §203 to the media (and assuming that Citizens United could not constitute "media"), the Court could deal with the problem at that time. Stevens described the majority's supposed protection of the media as nothing more than posturing. According to Stevens, it was the majority's new rule, announced in this case, that prohibited a law from distinguishing between "speakers" or funding sources. This new rule would be the only reason why media corporations could not be exempted from BCRA §203. In this, Stevens and the majority conceptualize the First Amendment's protection of "the press" quite differently. Stevens argues that the "Press" is an entity, which can be distinguished from other persons and entities which are not "press". The majority opinion viewed "freedom of the press" as an activity, applicable to all citizens or groups of citizens seeking to publish views.

 

Sixth, Stevens claimed that the majority failed to give proper deference to the legislature. Stevens predicted that this ruling would restrict the ability of the states to experiment with different methods for decreasing corruption in elections. According to Stevens, this ruling virtually ended those efforts, "declaring by fiat" that people will not "lose faith in our democracy".[29] Because of the complex interrelated interests at stake, Stevens found this an undesirable area of law for black-and-white rules. Stevens argued that the majority's view of a self-serving legislature, passing campaign-spending laws to gain an advantage in retaining a seat, coupled with "strict scrutiny" of laws, would make it difficult for any campaign finance regulation to be upheld in future cases.

 

Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders. A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech.[39] Because shareholders invest money in corporations, Stevens argued that the law should likewise help to protect shareholders from funding speech that they oppose. The majority, however, argued that ownership of corporate stock was voluntary, and that unhappy shareholders could simply sell off their shares if they did not agree with the corporation's speech. Stevens also argued that Political Action Committees (PACs), which allow individual members of a corporation to invest money in a separate fund, are an adequate substitute for general corporate speech and better protect shareholder rights. The majority, by contrast, had argued that most corporations are too small and lack the resources and raw number of shareholders and management staff necessary to cover the compliance, accounting, and administrative costs of maintaining a PAC. In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the justices in the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.

 

Stevens called the majority's faith in "corporate democracy" an unrealistic method for a shareholder to oppose political funding. A derivative suit is slow, inefficient, risky and potentially expensive. Likewise, shareholder meetings only happen a few times a year, not prior to every decision or transaction. Rather, the officers and boards control the day-to-day spending, including political spending. According to Stevens, the shareholders have few options, giving them "virtually nonexistent" recourse for opposing a corporation's political spending.[29] Furthermore, most shareholders use investment intermediaries, such as mutual funds or pensions, and by the time a shareholder may find out about a corporation's political spending and try to object, the damage is done and the shareholder has funded disfavored speech.

 

Stevens concluded his dissent:

 

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

 

[30]

 

Correspondingly, Stevens and the other dissenting justices would have upheld the constitutionality of BCRA §203 and its restriction against advertising and broadcasting "Hillary: The Movie" within 30 days of the primary election on the grounds that the movie was produced and distributed by a corporate entity.

[tvashtarkatena]

We're 9 days away from the election. Most recent polls show 46/42 for/against, error 5. This is down from 66 for 6 weeks ago. Not a good trend for 522.

 

Last year CA's prop 37 polled 67 for at this time (9 days before the election). It lost by 3 points.

 

In general, initiative proponents expect at least a margin of error's worth (5 points) of erosion within a week of an election - when most folks vote. This is particularly true when they are outgunned adwise, as is the case with 522. They prefer to go into an election with a large enough buffer to counteract this common phenomenon. 522 clearly doesn't have that luxury right now.

 

Given the rapidly eroding support too many days from the election, the lack of this win buffer, but taking into account WA's slightly more librul voting patterns than CA,I'd bet on a similarly close NO vote, but I wouldn't bet much.

 

It's going to be an interesting photo finish to an issue that is, frankly, a bit of a yawner.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

Imagine if everyone wanted a label that said, "this food was made by jews"

 

I bet the Jewish Anti-defamation League would spend millions of dollars trying to keep you from knowing who made your food.

 

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?????

 

I mean, if everybody wants it, we should just do it, right? People just want to know who made their food.