I522 - Pros and Cons

[tvashtarkatena]

"polls routinely show that 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling"

 

When one digs down, none of these are scientific polls. They were conducted by NPR, the NYT, and similar media, and therefore did not represent a true cross section of voters. FOX does this all the time - One of their polls indicated that close to 90% of respondents opposed Obamacare.

 

Elections are the truest 'polls'. Only 48% of CA voted for GMO labeling with all the issues - cost, scientific evidence, etc - were presented to voters. In WA right now, that number stands at 46% - even lower than CA.

 

The oft parroted 90% meme is complete crap, of course, but 'get with the program' is a groupthink trick used in just about every initiative campaign by one side or the other. When you hear a high number like that, you can bet the question was framed and/or the argument filtered to get a guaranteed YES.

 

On Nov 5th, we'll find out what this 90% number really is - it'll be about 40 points lower than has been advertised.

Edited October 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

 

I agree, and that's why I'm voting YES for public financing of council elections as an antidote.

Edited October 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

The No On 522 side has two notes it has played very well. Those two notes don't make a very beautiful sound, and that's the point: Scare and Disorient.

 

Scare with "vast cost increases we can't afford!!"

 

Disorient with "the labeling will be soooo confusing!"

 

 

Couple this with Monsanto's bank roll, and boy, I'm scared too what the outcome's going to be.

 

 

My advice to anyone still on the fence with this is to look inside, and don't allow fear and confusion to vote for you.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I've seen a total of one 522 10 second campaign commercial, so I can't speak to that. I'm just going by the messaging on the two competing campaign websites - and statements made here and on a similar FB thread by folks on both sides of the issue. So far, not a single person in either thread has urged a no vote because the labels would be 'confusing'.

 

The 90% in favor claim, however, has been made by nearly every single proponent of 522, including yourself. It may well be effective messaging, even if its not remotely true.

 

Costs don't 'scare' people. Rather, voters reasonably demand that they get something tangible for their money. That voters such as myself have come to the conclusion that this unfunded (telling) initiative isn't worth paying for as compared to competing services like education does not mean they've been hoodwinked. Voters should be extremely wary of unfunded initiatives in general. If its such a great idea, why not have a plan on how to pay for it, rather than siphoning off the general fund in a time of crushing deficits after the fact? Hmmmm. Yes, voters should look 'inside' here.

 

Such an attitude amounts to viewing WA voters as if they were idiots. They are not. I502 proved that such denigration is neither productive (um...look at 522's slide in support - think its all Monsanto? Or is it that voters are finally taking a closer look because their ballots are due soon?), nor necessary to win an election, even on a tough issue.

 

Discussion such as this one ARE the way people are 'looking inside', or, as I would put it 'taking a closer look'. These threads are probably the number one avenue for this kind of exploration. They are the antidote to anyone's ad barrage, and that's a very good thing.

Edited October 28, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

My advice to anyone still on the fence with this is to look inside, and don't allow fear and confusion to vote for you.

 

 

FRANKENFOOD!!!!

[JayB]

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.

 

 

A spectrophotometer that I need is busy so I have a moment for your quiz. The answer is Thomas Kuhn. What do I win? I read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" back in the early 90's en route to a history of science degree to round out the other stuff I was working on.

 

I don't mean any particular offense to you, but since the day of its publication I don't think there's been a single crank or charlatan who hasn't proclaimed that the reason that no one who has the formal training, technical competence, and mastery of the literature/empirical findings to properly evaluate the merits of whatever jive they're slinging under the banner of a "new paradigm" does anything but roll their eyes and get back to whatever they are working on, if they respond at all.

 

In the real world actual new discoveries or claims that run counter to the previous consensus prevail as soon as there's sufficient evidence (that last bit matters quite a lot) to back them up. When there's a robust association between cause and effect, or an experimental finding that conclusively validates a novel theory, the overwhelming majority of the folks who are actually practicing comes around fairly.

 

Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

My advice to anyone still on the fence with this is to look inside, and don't allow fear and confusion to vote for you.

 

 

FRANKENFOOD!!!!

 

This is called prepping your excuses for a potential loss. Invariably, the Monsantos and infantile voters who bought their lies will be blamed if 522 goes down.

 

I've spoken to many hundreds of voters on various issues and while working for a number of campaigns. Contrary to the belief embodied in the above paragraph, voters are smart.

 

If 522 loses, it will be because a) the campaign failed to make its case as to why voters should require so many to spend so much time, effort, and money to enact it and/or b) the initiative itself had one or more flaws large enough for voters to wait for something better to address the issues involved. It will not be because voters are 'scared' (of a food label?) or 'confused' by the Big Bad Monsantos who, after all, aren't the one's asking anyone to do anything here.

[Kimmo]

Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

 

hmmm your position above seems to be a bit dissociative, since it doesn't really address 1. my position, 2. Kuhn's per se, nor seemingly 3. your own.

 

1. Science is a process, not a position per se. Science is performed by humanoids, the results are evaluated, positions are formed (or protected, as often is the case). Even the process itself is betrothed to the context of the situation of course; let's not fall for the myth of neutrality here. Which means my position is one that takes any organization's policy statement with a grain of salt. I don't "believe" the AMA any more or less than I "believe" the conclusions of the French dudes' experiments with rats indicating toxicity with GMO's. My position is that GMO safety should not be assessed in 90 day trials by Monsanto, the company that stands to benefit by approval.

 

2. I'm not sure what Kuhn would specifically say about your assertion regarding GMO safety. I suspect he'd say Damn dude, look at the science; don't just parrot various org's policy positions.

 

3. you keep citing "studies", yet you don't produce a single study.

 

 

[rob]

 

3. you keep citing "studies", yet you don't produce a single study.

 

 

Here are 1,783 studies:

 

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

 

 

[rob]

Conventional, "organic" selective-breeding techniques once produced a poisonous potato.

[Kimmo]

 

3. you keep citing "studies", yet you don't produce a single study.

 

 

Here are 1,783 studies:

 

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

 

I guess you're speaking for JayB here, but since you posted it, I assume there is either one single study in that pile that you linked to that really resonated with you, or is it more the cumulative aggregate that convinces you?

 

Either way, can you cite the particular aspect/aspects of any of those studies that really leads you to believe GMO's are entirely safe(I'm assuming that's your position here)?

[Kimmo]

Contrary to the belief embodied in the above paragraph, voters are smart.

 

Really? How smart?

 

All of them?

 

Some of them?

 

Which ones?

 

 

 

You do seem rather naive at times.

 

 

It will not be because voters are 'scared' (of a food label?) or 'confused' by the Big Bad Monsantos who, after all, aren't the one's asking anyone to do anything here.

 

It's not the food label they're scared of, silly, it's the "enormous apocalyptic costs" that Monsanto has you parroting like a trained... ummmm... parrot.

 

And yes, Monsanto etal are certainly asking the voters something. They are asking the voters to reject an initiative using distortions, lies, and innuendos.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Kimmo

[rob]

Either way, can you cite the particular aspect/aspects of any of those studies that really leads you to believe GMO's are entirely safe(I'm assuming that's your position here)?

 

It's not that "GMO's are safe," it's that GMO technology isn't inherently more dangerous than any other breeding technology -- it's what you do with it. Sure, if you wanted to, you could make bad shit with genetic engineering. You could also do that with selective breeding. But, we don't require warning labels for items modified via conventional breeding techniques, nor should we for more advanced genetic techniques. Instead, we should regulate the modification of food items (regardless of what technique used) in order to actually protect consumers, rather than provide them with a useless label that tells them nothing (warning: this food was created using a technique. Cheers!)

 

I am not a genetic scientist. I will defer to the consensus of trained scientists and let the scientific process play out. Can you provide me even a single peer-reviewed article that indicates that, all other things equal, genetically-engineered products are inherently any more dangerous than conventionally-bred products? I can present you with thousands of studies that back up a strong consensus regarding the safety of the technique, whereas all you seem to have is the opinion of a handful of fringe scientists who can't cite scholarly articles but can only use words like "uncertainty" instead -- in order to breed fear and doubt among the scientific illiterate.

 

This dog was created purely via selective-breeding.

[W]

 

Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops effects of industrial pollution on climate are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops proposing that pollution is related to climate change...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

 

Fixed the above paragraph; ironically the conspiracy paradigm you highlight is the standard conservative talking point regarding climate and pollution.

[Kimmo]

It's not that "GMO's are safe," it's that GMO technology isn't inherently more dangerous than any other breeding technology --

 

what other breeding technology are you comparing it to?

 

Sure, if you wanted to, you could make bad shit with genetic engineering.

 

what kind of "bad shit" could you do with it?

 

You could also do that with selective breeding.

 

what kind of "bad shit" could you do with selective breeding?

 

But, we don't require warning labels for items modified via conventional breeding techniques, nor should we for more advanced genetic techniques.

 

you are assuming that cross-breeding is just the same as lab-based genetic engineering. a bit of a stretch for anyone to make. making a tomato fuck a salmon doesn't result in a good time, nor do much for their progeny.

 

Instead, we should regulate the modification of food items (regardless of what technique used) in order to actually protect consumers

 

what does that mean?

 

rather than provide them with a useless label that tells them nothing (warning: this good was created using a technique. Cheers!)

 

it tells this consumer, and many others, exactly what it intends to tell them: Contains (laboratory) genetically modified organisms. then we get to choose what we do with that information. Novel, huh?

 

I am not a genetic scientist.

 

then stop making the silly assertions above.

 

I can present you with thousands of studies that back up a strong consensus regarding the safety of the technique

 

pick one and post it.

 

whereas all you seem to have is the opinion of a handful of fringe scientists

 

I have a feeling you really haven't read much about this, nor did you read any of the links, i posted, nor did you even watch the utube vid i posted.

[rob]

nor did you even watch the utube vid i posted.

 

[rob]

this website is awesome

[olyclimber]

 

Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops effects of industrial pollution on climate are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops proposing that pollution is related to climate change...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

 

Fixed the above paragraph; ironically the conspiracy paradigm you highlight is the standard conservative talking point regarding climate and pollution.

 

[bstach]

Sure, if you wanted to, you could make bad shit with genetic engineering.

 

what kind of "bad shit" could you do with it?

 

Lots of examples of shit you could do with genetic engineering. Like breed a three-assed monkey. Huge improvement over single-assed monkeys. Or splice Squirrel genes with Provalone cheese. Think about it. Never again would have to look in two places for a squirrel and Provalone.

 

Edit: Thanks to genetic engineering pioneer Dr. Alphonse Mephesto for these ideas

Edited October 28, 2013 by bstach

[JayB]

 

Anyhow - if you want to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in all of the disciplines who actually have the formal training, technical know-how, mastery of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical knowledge to evaluate the risks and benefits of GMO crops effects of industrial pollution on climate are all simultaneously wrong and engaged in some kind of a vast collaborative conspiracy to harm humanity by...developing higher yielding, drought, pest, and disease resistant food crops proposing that pollution is related to climate change...or are trapped in some kind of a mental-prison/Kunhian paradigm that you have the special qualities necessary to see but they are blind to, go right ahead - but let's not pretend that either your motives for doing so or your conclusions are grounded in science.

 

Fixed the above paragraph; ironically the conspiracy paradigm you highlight is the standard conservative talking point regarding climate and pollution.

 

Agreed. It's ironic when people that appeal to this set of arguments in the realm of genetic engineering completely abandon the principle when it comes to climate change, vaccinations, fluoridating water, specific claims about the clinical efficacy of homeophathy, naturopathy, reiki, therapeutic touch, supernatural beliefs of all kinds, or whatever the case may be. It's easy to engage in motivated reasoning when doing otherwise would compel you to abandon or reconsider a deeply held conviction.

 

That's a fair point, and I suppose it's worth establishing that it's easy to stick with science when it on your side and abandon it when it isn't, but it doesn't make the particular case for labeling food crops produced with recombinant technology any more valid or compelling.

[Fairweather]

I'm voting no on 522 simply because I think it will fall prey to the rule of unintended consequences. Still, I think there is an unspoken problem with genetically altered food. As science continues to expand the possible vis-a-vis food production, the human population continues to expand commensurate with available resources--just as Malthus predicted. And the natural environment and the social fabric will continue to become more and more marginalized. I'm not saying we should dial back or that people should be allowed to starve, but there is a correlation between plentiful, cheap food and an expanding human population. (1900 <2Bn; 2013 >7.5Bn.) When it comes to genetically re-sequenced food, I think a line will need to be drawn at some point.

[prole]

As if the the American food industry ever gave a rat's ass about sound science...

 

11 Banned Food Ingredients Still Allowed In the U.S.

 

 

[rob]

 

11 Banned Food Ingredients Still Allowed In the U.S.

 

 

did you find this link in a banner ad? Livestrong!!!

 

I wonder what the recent obsession to lists is, anyway? "6 reasons to never do such and such" or "7 things to never say to a woman" -- it's very en vogue right now.

 

right next to the "Insurance companies hate this" and "one weird trick invented by a mom"

 

I even saw that a billionaire is warning americans to prepare for financial ruin. Look how pensive he is.

 

[prole]

 

11 Banned Food Ingredients Still Allowed In the U.S.

 

 

did you find this link in a banner ad? Livestrong!!!

 

I wonder what the recent obsession to lists is, anyway? "6 reasons to never do such and such" or "7 things to never say to a woman" -- it's very en vogue right now.

 

right next to the "Insurance companies hate this" and "one weird trick invented by a mom"

 

I even saw that a billionaire is warning americans to prepare for financial ruin. Look how pensive he is.

 

 

Great response, right on target.

[tvashtarkatena]