PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the GMO topic I'm surprised that non-GMO groups haven't done what Organic did: form their own certification group and labelling and use that to push instead.
 
shinra-bansho said:
Going full loony then. Time to label foods with DNA in them.
Maybe attract the wholefoods anti-vax vote too.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he's consistent.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

Sanders Amendment 965

To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.
Click to expand...

I'm upset by all the Yeas
 
Y2Kev said:
Trump could go on again with mika. That got six viewers.
Click to expand...

QbadP.png
 
Cerium said:
In fairness Kasich isn't viable and there's no way to make the math work for Cruz.

It's a two man race.
Click to expand...
NO!!! Cruz must go on. These fucks must hang on until March 15 and they must get 10% of the vote each or we are toast!
 
CCS said:
Oh fuck off with this. Can't stand GMO scaremongering.
Click to expand...

Now that's scare mongering?

Labeling what's in our foods.


I don't think there is anything wrong with GMOs but it not fear mongering to label them as such.

Plenty of people still eat up a ton of GMOs.
 
It's scaremongering because it's anti-science nonsense, no different to anti-vaccination autism idiocy.

A recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics finds that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” about the same number as support mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.” Oklahoma State economist Jayson Lusk has some additional details on the survey. If the government does impose mandatory labeling on foods containing DNA, perhaps the label might look something like this:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.
Click to expand...

It plays on people's fears of scary scientists and the acronyms they don't understand.
 
UltimaPooh said:
Now that's scare mongering?

Labeling what's in our foods.


I don't think there is anything wrong with GMOs but it not fear mongering to label them as such.

Plenty of people still eat up a ton of GMOs.
Click to expand...
There's no scientific basis for any danger or risk. The only reason for the label is to use people's irrational fear. What other purpose do they serve? We don't require that the nutrition facts on a box list exactly where the grains were grown, which is just as arbitrary
 
shinra-bansho said:
It's scaremongering because it's anti-science nonsense, no different to anti-vaccination autism idiocy.



It plays on people's fears of scary scientists and the acronyms they don't understand.
Click to expand...


Really tho? On the same level as anti vaccinations.

I look at it more as increased transparency on food products...

Bernie didn't say GMOs were bad...
 
Macho Madness said:
Now here's a real conspiracy: Leaked Audio Catches Mika and Joe Chatting With Trump During Break: 'Nothing Too Hard, Mika'

The difference is that we already knew this.
Click to expand...

The media are sycophants for power. Chuck Todd and others continue to cater to Trump in order to secure him on their shows, and Morning Joe is perhaps more blatant than others.

Have you guys checked out Brietbart lately, either the individual "journalists" there (Matthew Boyle especially) or the main site? It's pretty obvious Trump has some type of arrangement with them for good press/attacks on his enemies.
 
Teggy said:
Hold the phone guys, Hillary is screwed


Hillary Clinton (D) 9%
Not Sure 7%
Bernie Sanders (D) 83%
Other 1%

Vermont - Vermont Public Radio, Castleton University
Click to expand...

Macho Madness said:
Illinois conducted by Paul Simon Institute/SIU

Clinton 51
Sanders 32
Click to expand...
So one of the funny things I thought about when comparing 2008 to 2016 is that Obama actually had a fabulous advantage that Bernie doesn't have, which is the Illinois was his 'home state'. Vermont has pennies for delegates, whereas Illinois is one of the 10 most delegate-heavy states. It definitely helped Obama that he was a senator from Illinois.

In the end he got 50+ more delegates than Hillary from Illinois, and that was about half of Obama's final lead in delegate count.
 
I will be the crazy person and say that I don't really have problems with GMO-callout labeling. I don't think the comparison to vaccination is accurate.

Bernie sucks for other, trade-related reasons :P
 
pigeon said:
I will be the crazy person and say that I don't really have problems with GMO-callout labeling. I don't think the comparison to vaccination is accurate.

Bernie sucks for other, trade-related reasons :P
Click to expand...

The comparison to vaccinations isn't accurate because there's little societal risk to eating non-GMO foods. With that said though, GMO food labelling most benefits the food industry that can use it to prey upon irrational fears, which is oddly (if almost certainly unintentionally) favorable for business in a skeevy way coming from Sanders
 
I kinda think Bernie's stance on GMO is sensible. I'm all for more information and transparency to consumers. There is no anti-science scaremongering. People should be able to know if the food they want to consume are organic and free from any growth hormones, benign as they may be.
 
UltimaPooh said:
Really tho? On the same level as anti vaccinations.

I look at it more as increased transparency on food products...

Bernie didn't say GMOs were bad...
Click to expand...
It's the same premise as anti-vaccination rhetoric on the left. It is scientifically baseless and it plays on left-leaning people's fears of corporations. (The right's anti-vaccination rhetoric conversely stems from a mistrust of government intervention.)

Would you consider a label indicating that a food contains DNA to be more transparent? Because it's frankly as irrelevant to food safety.

pigeon said:
I will be the crazy person and say that I don't really have problems with GMO-callout labeling. I don't think the comparison to vaccination is accurate.

Bernie sucks for other, trade-related reasons :P
Click to expand...
Eh, this offends me more as a former molecular biologist. And it's an inconsistency and hypocrisy on the left that criticizes the right for ignoring climate science and evolution.
 
RustyNails said:
I kinda think Bernie's stance on GMO is sensible. I'm all for more information and transparency to consumers. There is no anti-science scaremongering. People should be able to know if the food they want to consume are organic and free from any growth hormones, benign as they may be.
Click to expand...

We already have specific organic labelling though for foods that do meet those criteria. I'm not sure what else a specific GMO label adds
 
UltimaPooh said:
Now that's scare mongering?

Labeling what's in our foods.


I don't think there is anything wrong with GMOs but it not fear mongering to label them as such.

Plenty of people still eat up a ton of GMOs.
Click to expand...

I don't really get this. Like, surely everyone (except the few internet trolls who don't realize they're trolling) understands by now that something being true isn't a sufficient reason to keep talking about how it's true. You see this behavior all the time and it's always dumb, right? It's obviously motivated by more than a desire to share an interesting bit of trivia. An obviously problematic example you see pretty often is bringing up rates of black-on-black crime when people are talking about police violence. Just an interesting fact that people might not be aware of!

So, why should we label GMOs? Absolutely no one thinks that the reason is so that people can have this momentary "oh that's interesting" reaction about which foods contain them, about how much of the food they eat contains them, etc. The idea is obviously to communicate something about the quality of food to consumers - specifically, the idea is to take advantage of the public's science illiteracy with a scary-sounding phrase. The push for labeling isn't rendered pure just because many of the scientifically illiterate who are supposed to be misled by all this talk about scary GMOs have already been misled such that they want to know if they're eating them. It is hard to see how it is a positive step towards educating these people to agree that GM food should have a label setting it apart.

Edit: Interestingly, the safety of GM food is where the American public is most out of step with scientists on this Pew poll - http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ . And we've got a whole political party dedicated to the idea that climate change isn't real and humans aren't responsible for it anyway! Consumers are absolutely not capable of making an informed choice here.

In retrospect I guess I'm really not surprised that Sanders would come out for this, though it sort of reinforces my impression of him as not caring too much about whether his proposals are actually good ideas. Honestly I bet Clinton would be pro-labeling too given the polling.
 
dramatis said:
So one of the funny things I thought about when comparing 2008 to 2016 is that Obama actually had a fabulous advantage that Bernie doesn't have, which is the Illinois was his 'home state'. Vermont has pennies for delegates, whereas Illinois is one of the 10 most delegate-heavy states. It definitely helped Obama that he was a senator from Illinois.

In the end he got 50+ more delegates than Hillary from Illinois, and that was about half of Obama's final lead in delegate count.
Click to expand...

If it's:

GA:

Hillary: 85
Bernie: 4

IL:

Hillary: 92
Bernie: 44

TX:

Hillary: 175 (I'm assuming a 23 point lead in the last PPP poll would basically have her lead almost every CD, but that could be assuming too much without a geographical breakdown. Also, Bernie isn't on TV in Texas so he could be routed further)
Bernie: 18

That would put Bernie at a 286 deficit without even going into the other Super Tuesday states. Keeping it close in Oklahoma or Massachusetts won't help close that.
 
shinra-bansho said:
It's the same premise as anti-vaccination rhetoric on the left. It is scientifically baseless and it plays on left-leaning people's fears of corporations. (The right's anti-vaccination rhetoric conversely stems from a mistrust of government intervention.)

Would you consider a label indicating that a food contains DNA to be more transparent? Because it's frankly as irrelevant to food safety.
Click to expand...

No. That would be a waste of time.

Would you be against regulations for labelling organically grown food? Last time I checked... And I'll be honest it's been a while, there's no strong regulation that decides what is truly organic or not.

Edit: Yup see bellow... You can label things organic.
 
RustyNails said:
I guess I'm just ignorant on the issue, but isn't Bernie saying foods that have been artificially grown or...embiggened, need to have that specific labeling?
Click to expand...
Currently if you see something marketed as "organic" at the supermarket like bananas or tomatoes it means that it has to meet these USDA criteria:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling
Which includes genetic modification, certain types of fertilizers, etc. It covers basically all the stuff people might be nervous about. If you're worried about GMO foods, even though there's no scientific basis for concern, just buy stuff labelled as organic.
 
RustyNails said:
I guess I'm just ignorant on the issue, but isn't Bernie saying foods that have been artificially grown or...embiggened, need to have that specific labeling?
Click to expand...

GMO foods also consist, of say, wheat which is resistant to a blight or whatever. It's not just bigger or more yield.
 
The lack of any Nevada polls in the last few days has me a little nervous. I know I shouldn't be, but I'm a little afraid of waves of previously undecided Republicans showing up to take back their party for Rubio.
 
UltimaPooh said:
No. That would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Both are a waste of time.
UltimaPooh said:
Would you be against regulations for labelling organically grown food? Last time I checked... And I'll be honest it's been a while, there's no strong regulation that decides what is truly organic or not.

Edit: Yup seebbelo ... You can label things organic.
Click to expand...
No, I have no problem with companies opting in to production of their foods under a given criteria to certify them with a label as a marketing ploy with little to no proven health benefits.
 
I think the GOP is making a mistake going for Rubio here. They're playing the short game when the long game is more important.

There is a massive chunk of the base (about 35%) right now that is furious with the establishment. We saw bits of this in 2012 but now it is in full effect. This group of people is far, far right and wants things done in Washington that are incredibly unlikely.

If Trump wins, their guy got the nomination, and either A) loses the GE or B) wins the presidency and goes on to not do what they want. Both things are good for the GOP. In scenario A, they say, "See? Should have picked the establishment guy." Scenario B is the same way. In the end, this group's rage may subside and they head back to the party.

If Rubio wins, there is no possible way he can live up to what they want. Next election, the rage against the establishment is worse and the party may head toward a split.
 
shinra-bansho said:
No, I have no problem with companies opting in to production of their foods under a given criteria to certify them with a label as a marketing ploy with little to no proven health benefits.
Click to expand...

Basically. The difference between Organic and GMO labelling is that the former is opt-in based on additional criteria while the latter is an arbitrary label applied to goods that are already heavily studied and found safe. If you really care about GMOs the organic label already exists and is certified
 
Plinko said:
I think the GOP is making a mistake going for Rubio here. They're playing the short game when the long game is more important.

There is a massive chunk of the base (about 35%) right now that is furious with the establishment. We saw bits of this in 2012 but now it is in full effect. This group of people is far, far right and wants things done in Washington that are incredibly unlikely.

If Trump wins, their guy got the nomination, and either A) loses the GE or B) wins the presidency and goes on to not do what they want. Both things are good for the GOP. In scenario A, they say, "See? Should have picked the establishment guy." Scenario B is the same way. In the end, this group's rage may subside and they head back to the party.

If Rubio wins, there is no possible way he can live up to what they want. Next election, the rage against the establishment is worse and the party may head toward a split.
Click to expand...

If the Republicans lose the Presidency they also lose the Supreme Court for a generation.
 
Plinko said:
I think the GOP is making a mistake going for Rubio here. They're playing the short game when the long game is more important.

There is a massive chunk of the base (about 35%) right now that is furious with the establishment. We saw bits of this in 2012 but now it is in full effect. This group of people is far, far right and wants things done in Washington that are incredibly unlikely.

If Trump wins, their guy got the nomination, and either A) loses the GE or B) wins the presidency and goes on to not do what they want. Both things are good for the GOP. In scenario A, they say, "See? Should have picked the establishment guy." Scenario B is the same way. In the end, this group's rage may subside and they head back to the party.

If Rubio wins, there is no possible way he can live up to what they want. Next election, the rage against the establishment is worse and the party may head toward a split.
Click to expand...

But Rubio can beat Hillary
 
Plinko said:
I think the GOP is making a mistake going for Rubio here. They're playing the short game when the long game is more important.

There is a massive chunk of the base (about 35%) right now that is furious with the establishment. We saw bits of this in 2012 but now it is in full effect. This group of people is far, far right and wants things done in Washington that are incredibly unlikely.

If Trump wins, their guy got the nomination, and either A) loses the GE or B) wins the presidency and goes on to not do what they want. Both things are good for the GOP. In scenario A, they say, "See? Should have picked the establishment guy." Scenario B is the same way. In the end, this group's rage may subside and they head back to the party.

If Rubio wins, there is no possible way he can live up to what they want. Next election, the rage against the establishment is worse and the party may head toward a split.
Click to expand...

And if Trump wins, then it means they have a lot of down ticket races in serious trouble.

If Rubio wins, anger at the establishment only increases exponentially as the party's leadership learns absolutely nothing.

Delicious.

Please...Proceed.
 
ivysaur12 said:
oh for fuck's sake
Click to expand...
I took a political test for fun and it was something like 98% Hilary and 97% Sanders. When I look up why it's because Sanders supported legislating GMO labeling. I wasn't heavy into either, but that made me lean Hilary.

It does sadly fit the mantra of being "like the rest of the world" (Europe). GMOs aren't even legal where I live apart from limited concentrations in imported food.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
11K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
1K
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom