Food Companies Propose Legislation to Allow Voluntary Non-GMO Labeling

Killer TomatoesAttack of the Killer TomatoesLast week, Maine became the second state to approve legislation mandating that foods made using ingredients from modern biotech crop varieties be conspicuously labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering.” Like the first state, Connecticut, the labeling mandate will not come into effect until more states have adopted similar measures.

Also last week, a consortium of major food companies issued a draft bill that would preempt such state-mandated labeling requirements, but permit food companies to voluntarily disclose that their products contained no ingredients from genetically modified crops. I basically agree with the reaction of Elizabeth Whelan, head of the American Council on Science and Health to the proposal:

"Of course, GMO-containing (biotech) foods are not a health threat to anyone, but that is merely a scientific position, based on technology and 17+ years experience of millions of consumers eating these products without any trace or suggestion of harm. Those opposed to biotechnology are either reacting out of superstition and baseless fears, or are beholden to the organic food industry, which is now a behemoth, but they have succeeded in fomenting consumer and corporate concerns. All parties should be happy with this new idea, consolidating the labelling issue. I would prefer if those who choose to market non-GMO products just went ahead and labelled their own items and left the rest of us alone.”

Specifically, the proposed bill...

...would allow manufacturers to voluntarily make claims about the absence of bioengineered ingredients if the manufacturer has in place a traceability program to ensure bioengineered food is not commingled with the non-bioengineered food at any stage of production from farm to retail, while making allowances for unavoidable, inadvertent cross contact with bioengineered foods. The claim could be made on dairy products derived from cows and other milk-producing animals that consumed feed or a feed ingredient or received a drug or biological product that was developed through biotechnology and has been authorized for such use by the Secretary. The claim may also be made on a food produced with a bioengineered processing aid or enzyme. To avoid misleading consumers, claims regarding bioengineering would not be permitted to state or imply that a food is more or less safe solely because of the use or absence of bioengineered food. The provision would also authorize FDA to develop regulations for the voluntary labeling of the presence of bioengineered ingredients in food products. As under the mandatory notification program, FDA would have the authority to mandate special labeling to address any material difference that could affect health and safety or cause consumer deception. The regulations under this section shall not prevent a person from a) disclosing voluntarily on the labeling of bioengineered food the manner in which the food has been modified to express traits or characteristics that differ from its comparable marketed food or 2) from disclosing advertisements, on the internet, in response to consumer inquiries, or on other communications that food is or contains an ingredient derived through the use of biotechnology.

I want to highlight an especially critical aspect of the proposal: To avoid misleading consumers, claims regarding bioengineering would not be permitted to state or imply that a food is more or less safe solely because of the use or absence of bioengineered food.

Although allowing non-GMO growers and food sellers to label their products as such will likely mislead consumers into paying more for products that are no better than foods using ingredients from conventional or biotech crops,  the draft proposal is a sensible compromise. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fluffy||

    When the first company does this, I will immediately sue for false advertising on the basis of the fact that all seed crops differ genetically from their Neolithic forbears as the result of human manipulation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Maine law defines 'genetically engineered' as follows:

    ""Genetically engineered" means the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombinant barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. "

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Traditional." Ha!

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Yeah, I was just thinking about that. Traditional methods often do not have the depth of history people assume.

  • WTF||

    Just because the government decides to define a tail as a leg, it doesn't mean a dog has five legs.

  • Fluffy||

    I would litigate hard on the fact that "traditional" would be almost impossible to define or document (the original modifications of barley, for example, took place so deep in time that there's absolutely no way to definitively state how they were done).

  • Pro Libertate||

    To repeat myself: "You call it corn, we call it maize. MAIZE stands for Modified Agriculture with which Indians Zapped Europeans."

  • ||

    When the first company does this, I will immediately sue for false advertising on the basis of the fact that all seed crops differ genetically from their Neolithic forbears as the result of human manipulation.

    I hope your lawyers are already at work going after Dominos for it's "carbon-free" sugar.

  • ||

    And two typos in one sentence FTW!

  • LarryA||

    But what about all the jars of preserves that say, "No preservatives?"

  • Live Free or Diet||

    crops differ genetically from their Neolithic forbears as the result of human manipulation.

    I found some lettuce growing wild in one of our fields. I was surprised at the amount of oil in its seeds, as well as the milkiness of the juice in the leaves and stems. The local extension agent says I'm right, it's lettuce, and the milky stuff is latex.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Don't trust him. He's a commie.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think you'd have much of a case. There is a real and definable distinction between things that were bred with artificial selection and random mutations and deliberate purposeful manipulations of genes. It is stupid that people so baselessly worry about it, but it is a real distinction.

    What I find funny is that people are just fine with random mutations (including those induced by artificial irradiation, which most people seem to include in "traditionally" bred crops), but worried about deliberate use of genes that people understand the function of.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Last week, Maine became the second state to approve legislation mandating that foods made using ingredients from modern biotech crop varieties be conspicuously labeled “Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

    How about "Proudly Produced with Genetic Engineering". I'd buy that over the non-GMO crap in a heartbeat.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Made better and healthier by science!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    "Better living through chemicals."

    Brought to you by Dupont, makers of Napalm and Spandex...both designed to stick to human skin.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Skin is in their mission statement.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    "Better living through chemicals."


    Or.. Better living through pharmaceuticals...

    Which I think society already agrees with - another in the long line of odd contradictions these days - messing with brain chemistry with drugs - A-ok.

    Making crops insect resistant and thereby reducing chemical use - evil.

  • JW||

    The thing is, I can see GMO being a selling point in the 50's.

    "Better Food Through Atomic Radiation!"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Too bad we can't have that kind of technophilia anymore.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Don't know know, -philias are bad, unless they're on the pre-approved list of sanctioned -philias.

  • Zeb||

    I'll buy what is of good quality for a reasonable price regardless of silly labeling.

  • ||

    This will have the same effect as the "no HGH" labels on milk products. It will immediately be ignored completely by 98% of consumers, who only look at the price tag.

  • ||

    This might backfire on the ant-GMO crowd when people realize just how much food is made with “frankenfood” ingredients.
    US sugar beet farmers use Monsanto Roundup Ready sugar beets. They sell sugar to Pepsi and Hershey. Half the products on the shelves in grocery stores will need a label.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Also, as Epi said above, when they see the "GMO" food is shitloads cheaper than the non-GMO food.

  • JW||

    The wife-unit proves you wrong.

    "Only $6/gallon for milk that might reduce an infinitesimally small risk of possibly being adversely affected by something icky? SOLD."

  • Zeb||

    I think you need a larger sample before you can conclude that.
    Though I suspect that a bit more than 2% of the population falls for it.

  • ||

    Then your wife is retarded. Does she wear a hat and have a job and bring home the bacon?

  • JW||

    She brings home the turkey bacon. Is that the same thing?

  • UnCivilServant||

    NO!

    If it ain't pork, it ain't bacon!

  • Zeb||

    Yes. There is no such thing as turkey bacon.

  • UnCivilServant||

    They may claim it's bacon, but without pork, it fails my definition.

  • ||

    Just a heads up: the Black Forest Bacon from Trader Joe's is fucking amazing. I can't go back to regular bacon now. I hope they never discontinue it, because I'll lose my shit.

  • Brett L||

    Bear bacon is reputed to be awesome.

  • ||

    I've had bear, and it's a lot like pork, so it would make sense that bear bacon would be good (being very similar to pork).

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Turkey bacon sucks.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    The unprecedented level of fucking herpity-derpity in the comments section this NPR article will make your heads collapse in on themselves and tear a hole in the space-time continuum.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    Tony must be trolling NPR under 30 different handles:

    Not sure what the problem is... The "good guy" with a gun is the solution according to the NRA. Who has a problem with a cop (ex-cop) "standing his ground" in Florida? Who is to say flying popcorn wasn't dangerous? It could have been a choking hazard to Reves had it gone down his throat, he may be allergic to it, it could have hit him in the eye and blinded him. I sleep very well at night knowing that the wisdom of the NRA is keeping ALL OF US SAFE!!!

  • Agammamon||

    Does this guy know that, even if handguns were illegal in Florida, there would have been an exception for On-duty, off-duty, and retired police

  • ||

    I would say this guy knows exactly fuck all, period, so no.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I didn't realize that companies had to obtain legislative permission to label their products.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm pretty sure that all labels must be approved by the government. I know that's the case with alcoholic beverages. This poses a real challenge to brewers because it takes longer to get approval for a label than it does to make a batch. They've got to plan ahead for seasonal brews, because if they don't start the approval process a good six months before the season starts, the label won't be approved until after the season is over.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    But regulation doesn't inhibit business.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure if it all has to be pre-approved, but there are very specific rules about what you can call things on food packaging.

  • ||

    Welcome to today's world, Hugh. We've been waiting for you to get here.

  • ||

    Oh Hugh, so naive!

  • Pro Libertate||

    WTF? What's next, labels asserting that no foods were grown on Mars?

    Frankly, I don't see how GMO labeling can be made mandatory, when there's still not a lick of evidence that GMO foods are at all harmful. If consumers really want to know, companies will label on their own.

  • Mokers||

    WTF? What's next, labels asserting that no foods were grown on Mars?

    I fully expect that something based on carbon neutrality of the product is going to eventually happen.

  • John||

    But a good number of people have replaced their faith in religion with faith in dip shit things like environmentalism. They don't need evidence. They just know that GMO foods are not natural and are therefore unclean.

    Really, how are these GMO assholes any different from super Orthodox Jews obsessing over whether their food mixes meat and diary?

    I know, the Jews are not pushing for laws to make the whole world keep Kosher.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, is there any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left? I imagine many groups have this irrational aversive 'ick' factor about it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Just anecdotally, I'd say this is much more a creature of the left than of any other group. I don't personally know of anyone who spouts the anti-GMO nonsense who isn't pretty far to the left politically. Not that that means there aren't conservatives who oppose GMOs--I'm sure there are.

  • John||

    ohn, is there any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left?

    Ah yes.

    Here is the founder of the anti-Gm movement apologizing for starting it.

    These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.
    \
    Are you really that stupid an uninformed that you don't know that the mainline Greens are behind this? Or are you every bit the troll people say you are?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I meant something like polling data.

  • John||

    So I guess the fact that the founder of the movement said that the cause was successfully pursued by "NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth isn't "any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left?"

    Really? I don't know what else to tell you Bo. And I am not going to let you hijack the thread away from a point you don't like by engaging in some kind of inane debate about if my link really amounts to evidence. If you have evidence that anyone but the green left is behind this, post it. As it is, the link I gave speaks for itself.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "So I guess the fact that the founder of the movement said that the cause was successfully pursued by "NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth isn't "any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left?""

    Er, yes John. That is basic logic.

  • John||

    Er, yes John. That is basic logic.

    Not in our universe. Perhaps in yours. If you have evidence that anyone other than the Green left is behind this or that a significant portion of it disagrees with Greenpeace, provide it. Otherwise, you are just being a troll trying to obscure the fact that the Green left is wildly unscientific and in effectively murderous on this issue.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "If you have evidence that anyone other than the Green left is behind this or that a significant portion of it disagrees with Greenpeace, provide it."

    Again, you made the claim, and you have yet to produce any evidence.

    Showing that one person involved in the movement was a leftist environmentalist is no data for deciding if most people who oppose GMO or support its labeling are. That is really basic logic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Mind you, I am not claiming what you said is not true, just asking for some kind of substantiating data, like polling data on GMO's with broken down by ideology or party affiliation.

  • John||

    Again, you made the claim, and you have yet to produce any evidence

    I have the founder of the movement saying that the Green left in the form of Green Peace and Friends of the Earth were responsible for its success.

    That is pretty good evidence. You have nothing other than "not true". Face it, the Green Left are behind this. The founder of the movement says so and says he is sorry for the harm it has caused. He didn't list the CATO Institute now did he?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There is one 'founder' of the 'movement?' And by your own story he now recants, and yet the movement goes on, so how can that be if what this man thinks=the 'movement.'

    I mean, the bill in question was signed by a GOP Governor who is supposed to be aligned with the Tea Party. By your logic this is a baby of the Tea Party.

  • John||

    And by your own story he now recants, and yet the movement goes on, so how can that be if what this man thinks=the 'movement.'

    That is the dumbest thing you have ever written on here. So what if he recants? He founded the movement you half wit. I think that makes him a hell of a credible source concerning who makes up that movement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not asking about the movement John, but about public opinion.

    But your logic is still horrible. If the founder of the animal welfare movement was shown to be a conservative Republican, would that demonstrate that most people today with certain animal welfare views are conservative Republicans?

  • Fluffy||

    I am not asking about the movement John, but about public opinion.

    That was not what you actually asked.

    You're either lying, or too stupid to understand your own posts.

    Pick one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you are concerned with anything other than trolling yourself, then where do you think this discussion was going?

    John|1.14.14 @ 1:22PM|#

    But a good number of people have replaced their faith in religion with faith in dip shit things like environmentalism.

    Bo Cara Esq.|1.14.14 @ 1:28PM|#

    John, is there any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left? I imagine many groups have this irrational aversive 'ick' factor about it.

    John|1.14.14 @ 1:32PM|#

    ohn, is there any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left?

    John|1.14.14 @ 1:32PM|#

    Ah yes.

    Here is the founder of the anti-Gm movement apologizing for starting it.

    Bo Cara Esq.|1.14.14 @ 1:32PM|#

    I meant something like polling data.

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck off, Tony.

    If tomorrow MASSPIRG and Greenpeace and the CPUSA work together on a project, that action in and of itself is sufficient to demonstrate that the action is a concern of the left and of environmentalists. Additional data points are not required.

    You may WANT polling data, but fuck you. Based on John's original statement, the evidence he has provided is definitive.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is laughable fluffy.

    As I said, by that logic since LePage, a Tea Party Republican, signed this bill into law then it is 'definitive' (you clearly have no idea what this term means) that it is mostly Tea Party Republicans who hold this position!

    Not to mention your gross fallacy of composition.

  • Fluffy||

    As I said, by that logic since LePage, a Tea Party Republican, signed this bill into law then it is 'definitive' (you clearly have no idea what this term means) that it is mostly Tea Party Republicans who hold this position!

    You can't read the plain English of your own posts, fuckwad.

    "It is mostly Tea Party Republicans who hold this position" is not, logically or grammatically, synonymous with "Is that position a province of the Tea Party?"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I realize you feel you have won some great semantic victory here, and if it makes you feel better then I grant it to you.

    Now, as to the question of whether this position on GMO's is more prevalent in the general public on the left or among Democrats, do you or anyone else have any evidence to that effect?

  • wareagle||

    jezus, Bo; John only had the founder of the movement's own words, the proverbial horse's mouth. What the hell?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can think of 'movements' that had a founder of certain political leanings and then the positions of that movement became just as, if not more so, popular among groups with different political leanings, can't you? Since that is simply true, then pointing to a 'leader of the movement' (I am betting it is a fairly diffuse 'movement' btw) does not answer what I was getting at.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I can think of 'movements' that had a founder of certain political leanings and then the positions of that movement became just as, if not more so, popular among groups with different political leanings, can't you?

    No, please cite examples.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is easy.

    Early on the Temperance movement was largely made up of evangelical Christians, but by the time Prohibition passed you were as likely to find support among liberal progressives as anyone else.

    The animal welfare movement began with what we would call evangelical Christians, but today is more likely to find support among different groups.

    Anti-evolutionists once saw progressives like Democrat William Jennings Bryant as their hero, but today that position is more likely found among conservative Republicans.

    More?

  • ||

    That's cause evangelical Christians WERE AND ARE progressives.

    Hence Bush the lesser.

  • wareagle||

    look where the movement spread from the founder. There is no cabal of right-wing anti-GMO groups. I doubt the general public at large has much interest in the matter beyond whatever scare story the local news might have run on hormone-fed beef or some such.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "is no cabal of right-wing anti-GMO groups."

    I have never heard of any, yes. But given the law that started this thread was signed by a Republican Governor described as a Tea Party favorite I was very interested in the distribution of these views among the more general public.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    " Or are you every bit the troll people say you are?"

    By the way, this not-so-subtle hysterical blending of an ad hominen with an ad popularum is nice.

  • John||

    I am not making an ad homonim you half wit. I am attacking you personally. An ad homonim would be me saying that no one should believe your point because you are a troll. I am saying no such thing. I am saying that because you constantly make inane points and hijack the threads away from issues and facts you don't like, you are a troll. There is nothing ad homonim about that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, if you cannot substantiate your claim with any data there is no need to be all upset about it.

  • RBS||

    Poling data? Really?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am open to suggestions about other good evidence that would show how public opinion on these matters breaks down by political affiliation and/or ideology.

  • RBS||

    I am not entirely sure you actually know what "good" evidence is.

  • Fluffy||

    You DID NOT ASK "How does public opinion on these matters break down by political affiliation or ideology?"

    Specifically, you asked:

    "Is there any evidence that opposition to genetically modified food or support for mandatory labeling or restriction is the province of the environmental left?"

    Note that this question doesn't ask if it's uniquely the province of the environmental left, or even predominantly the province of the environmental left.

    It just asks if it's the province of the environmental left.

    Therefore, evidence that the issue is, in fact, "the province" of prominent organizations that can be characterized as being part of the environmental left would definitively answer your ORIGINAL question.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am wondering if by this you are conceding that it is absurd to think one shows the distribution of a position among a population by pointing to a 'founder of the movement' associated with that position?

  • RBS||

    It's not just the founder, why don't you read what the founder said about the movement and how it spread?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So it is not just the founder, I should listen to the founder?

  • Fluffy||

    I'm not conceding anything, cunt.

    The entire discussion right now consists of one topic and one topic only:

    Did John offer good evidence to respond to your original question?

    The answer to that is "Yes, he did, and that means that all the condescending pap you posted after that is intellectually dishonest goalpost shifting."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think I qualified what I was getting at rather quickly, so it seems to me all the other posts, especially yours, are at best semantic trolling.

  • 904cc||

    it seems to me all the other posts, especially yours, are at best semantic trolling.

    THAT from YOU?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh my god thank you, so much.

  • ||

    You do realize that polling data is utter bullshit. Like going to see the oracle to determine your fate kinds of bullshit.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, for fuck's sake. You're all being idiots.

    Yes, it is pretty clear that the strongest opposition to GMO crops is from leftist environmentalists, and those are also the people who have started organized movements against it. But I am sure that there is a certain portion of people from all political leanings who don't like the idea.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Zeb, I would not contest the claim that the organizations pushing GMO food restrictions are to the left. I just wonder if support for such restrictions is found there primarily among the general public. As I said in my first post, it seems to me a lot of different groups might have an 'ick' reaction to them. And I do not think that the first fact establishes much of anything about the question.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think your original question was unreasonable. You should have walked away after the second exchange with John, though. Don't be the new MNG.

    I suppose you don't care much, since you keep showing up and taking abuse, but I'd recommend avoiding these silly back and forths. And learn just a little bit of HTML formatting.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is John, and other rightleaners here, just to cow anyone who disagrees with him by his abusive replies?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    *facepalm*

  • Zeb||

    No, I wouldn't say that. John's problem (and yours) is not knowing when to walk away.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    No, I wouldn't say that. John's problem (and yours) is not knowing when to walk away.

    This. Times eleventybillion.

    Seriously, this entire idiotic, pedantic argument could have been easily avoided if Bo had simply done a Google search instead of picking a fight. Or if John had done said Google search and posted the findings immediately.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    John was right - Bo played moved the goalposts.

    Bo should've quit - John had no reason to (except sanity & time).

  • UnCivilServant||

    I imagine many groups have this irrational aversive 'ick' factor about it.

    I imagine a lot of things, most of which I use when writing fiction. Is there any evidence of this being a distributed effect? The best way to counter assertions is with supporting evidence.

    I don't have any either way, I'm just Pro-GMO.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Usually a person making a claim has the burden of producing evidence, not the person wondering if it is true.

  • UnCivilServant||

    But if you don't refute it with evidence it becomes a playground argument of "Did too" "Did not" "Did too" "did not"... Not the most convincing set of arguments available.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Someone makes a claim: this position is taken mostly by group X

    Someone else says: is that so? is there any proof of that?

    I think then the ball is in the first person's court, since the second person has made no claim other than what is the first one based on.

  • John||

    But you were provided with evidence. The founder of the movement says that the Green left are the ones who successfully exported this idea around the world.

    And your response is "that is not really evidence". But you are not a troll trying to hijack the thread to cover up a fact you don't like?

  • sarcasmic||

    And your response is "that is not really evidence".

    Goalposts go WHOOSH!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    When someone asks for how sentiment in the general public breaks down by ideology or political affiliation, pointing to the words of a single 'founder of the movement' (and one who has recanted at that!) is moving the goalposts, not what I am saying.

  • sarcasmic||

    You want to know who wants GMOs labeled? Take a stroll through Whole Foods. That's all you need to do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That sounds scientific.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's called common sense. Some of us have it. You don't.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would just like to have some evidence I consider more reliable than a stroll down the supermarket aisle.

  • AlexInCT||

    Why? So you can ignore it when it says what you don't want it to?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I accepted the polling evidence as soon as it was offered, see infra.

  • Fluffy||

    When someone asks for how sentiment in the general public breaks down by ideology or political affiliation

    THAT WAS NOT WHAT YOU ASKED YOU FUCKING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST FUCK.

    Fuck you, Tony.

    Some of us ACTUALLY READ THE POSTS, bitch.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh my, your all caps are quite compelling.

    When you 'actually read the posts' did you read my following sentence? It seems Pro Libertate knew what I was getting at in his response.

    Once John pointed to his 'founder of the movement' I immediately specified the kind of question I had, so perhaps you an calm down now.

  • Fluffy||

    When you 'actually read the posts' did you read my following sentence?

    Your next sentence is nothing but mere musing, and does not change the content of your question.

    Pro Libertate attempted to impose meaning on your gibberish, but that is not relevant. There's no burden on me to force additional content into your posts.

    I became involved in this sub-thread because of the galling way you asked a question, received an answer, and then turned into a condescending little bitch about the quality of the evidence you were offered. And if anyone is going to be condescended to here, it's you - because you failed to understand exactly how little evidence your original question required in response.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Pro Libertate attempted to impose meaning on your gibberish, but that is not relevant."

    So where did he get that meaning from? I bet he was trying to fairly read what I said, something of course you seem uninterested in.

  • Fluffy||

    So where did he get that meaning from? I bet he was trying to fairly read what I said, something of course you seem uninterested in.

    My obligation to indulge you and employ the principle of intellectual charity ended when you failed to do that with John.

    I was entitled to take your action and make it my maxim.

    Always keep one thing in mind, Tony: your ability to be a pedantic little bitch is DWARFED by mine.

  • ||

    Always keep one thing in mind, Tony: your ability to be a pedantic little bitch is DWARFED by mine.

    50 bucks on Fluffy! Any takers?

  • ||

    CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "your ability to be a pedantic little bitch is DWARFED by mine."

    I will readily agree with you that you are far more of a pedantic little b*tch than I ever could be.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fucking Pro Lib. Splitter.

  • UnCivilServant||

    In these types of discussions, that sort of question is generally floated as a way of saying the initial claim is refuted without actually doing so. It's a weak rhetorical device to generate doubt instead of address the matter. If you have something to back up the question, present it, it will add to the impetus for the original poster to provide supporting evidence. There is no court, and this isn't tennis.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So in these types of discussions the generalizations people make are assumed to be true unless someone proves them otherwise? That is an interesting discussion path.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You can assume whatever you want.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some generalizations are obvious to people who can see.

  • John||

    Uncivil Servant,

    Read my below link. Here is the Greenpeace website on GMO.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/inte.....gineering/

    But Bo is just trolling and no amount of proof will cause him to back down.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, that liberal groups started this movement, or that even at this time liberal groups are the most vocal parts in it, does not in any way tell us what public opinion by ideology or political affiliation is on this issue.

    This is embarrassingly easy to see. For example, Ken Stroup, a libertarian, could be called the 'founder' of the marijuana decriminalization movement. But if you concluded from that fact that support for decriminalizing marijuana was 'the province' of libertarianism that would be exceedingly silly (the vast majority of people who support that view are not libertarians).

  • Zeb||

    There are definitely some from outside the regular left who are anti-GMO. There are the "crunchy-cons" who seem to be religious conservatives mostly who mostly agree with the leftist environmental agenda. And then there are loads of conspiracy minded people of all stripes who think that there is some sort of corporate conspiracy to do something nefarious with GMO crops.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I've always assumed that at least some anti-genetic engineering people reside on the right. I mean, it's tampering with God's creation and all of that. Of course, so is any technology if you view things such ways.

  • John||

  • sarcasmic||

    Does it have polling data?

    Is the data broken down by age, physical gender, gender identity, sexual preference and favorite sexual position?

    Otherwise it doesn't count! Not good enough!

  • KDN||

    Relevant:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine......and-right/

    Conservative media doesn’t have a whole to say on the GMO issue, while liberal media is all over it, frequently distorting the science of biotechnology and skewing its coverage to play up uncertainties in a way that is completely out of scientific context. Kinda reminds you of how another big environmental issue is often covered in conservative media, doesn’t it?

    Also:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567

    There's also a political difference. Republicans divide evenly on whether genetically modified foods are safe or unsafe. Independents rate them unsafe by a 20-point margin; Democrats, by a 26-point margin.

    And that took like 2 seconds of Googling. Come on, people.

  • John||

    It is a tribute to the propaganda power of the media that the numbers are that high. But, I think that answers Bo's issue. It is certainly a left wing issue.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ! I just wasted my time reading that entire thread. (I still have no idea why).

    All this was solved by a simple google search. "anti-GMO groups" and unsurprisingly, John was right. nearly every single group that is anti-GMO is left affiliated.

    I mean, it's no poll with demographics broken down by the number and color of pubes each person has, but I'd say it's pretty definitive.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "and unsurprisingly, John was right. nearly every single group that is anti-GMO is left affiliated."

    That was not the question I was asking.

    The polling data show that while Republicans are as likely to oppose them as not, Democrats are more likely to oppose them than not.

  • Zeb||

    Now wouldn't that have been easier than the abortion that takes up half of this thread?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Thank you, this is all I was asking for.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    No - it's what you asked for after what you originally asked for was answered.

    Then you moved the goalposts and pretended everyone telling you what you were doing where all Republicans trying to hurt you or some such nonsense.

    & think of that - it took an disinterested third party to do a quick google search you could've done after you moved the goal posts.

    But instead you fought as if the original question you asked wasn't answered and agreed upon by many to be sufficient.

    It's your semblance of logic that even warrants replies - people think you will see your err and possibly change.

    Some have given up hope.

    Is it your goal that everyone here does? Who will you argue with when you are finally treated just like Tony?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Hmmmm. Blue Tulpa is going to ask a stupid question... Someone will give him an answer... And then... And then... And then Blue Tulpa will argue about irrelevant bullshit and garbage up an entire thread with his idiocracy.

    It's almost as if I've seen this movie before.

  • waffles||

    Mea Tulpa. The guilty mind of arguing in bad faith.

  • Zeb||

    I can see why people get annoyed at Bo's pedantry and "devil's advocate" schtick. But I haven't seen any reason to believe that he is not a sincere libertarian. And Tulpa is way more of a prick.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    But I haven't seen any reason to believe that he is not a sincere libertarian.

    Just goes to show, libertarianism has its assholes too.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think some may be put off too by what I have been told is my odd way of phrasing things. My parents were missionaries and ultra-conservative religiously. Swearing, very broadly defined, was absolutely forbidden, we were largely home schooled, tv was not available at our house, and they talked in a very, very formal way. As a result, I tend to talk in a way (my first instinct was to write 'fashion') that is going to come across a bit awkward to those with different upbringings.

  • Enough About Palin||

    It's why I block him.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I obsess over different uncooked meats being next to each other. Because the bacteria can transfer, especially from poultry to other meats that are cooked to lower temperatures. I imagine the meat and dairy thing started that way.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Evidence and democracy have nothing to do with one another.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exhibit #Eleventy Billion for why we need limited government.

  • ||

    Exhibit Eleventy Billion and One illustrating how you continue to engage in the fantasy that limited government can exist, or exist much longer than five minutes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Beats zero minutes for your system. I wish they would pass a law to label you.

  • ||

    "My system has been proven to fail, every time, by always growing, but yours hasn't so that means yours sucks!"

    Good argument, ProL.

  • Pro Libertate||

    WARNING: EPISIARCH WAS USED IN THIS BLOG COMMENTS SECTION. CALIFORNIA HAS DETERMINED THAT NO AMOUNT OF EPISIARCH EXPOSURE IS SAFE.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Warning - overuse of bold can cause irrational irritation.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Look, the FTC requires clear and conspicuous warning labels. Be thankful I didn't whip out my blink tag.

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's just a warning label on your warning label, they FTC should be all over that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, but your metawarning was not clear and conspicuous. I'll take treble damages and attorneys' fees, Alex.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'll play my "Corrupt NY Judge" trump card here.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Damn you!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Can't we all just get along?

    There will be plenty of time for the minarchists and anarchists to fight AFTER we completely convince the rest of the world that liberty is the answer.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I've told him that before. If and when the minarchists are successful, I fully intend to use the limited power of my government to, through full due process, lock him up in a camp.

  • From the Tundra||

    AFTER we completely convince the rest of the world that liberty is the answer.

    Hah! Good one!

  • Floridian||

    I will indulge the fantasy of an anarchist city and a minarchist city a few miles from each other. I envision the anarchist youths riding their spiked motorcycles down to minarchy city to spray paint statists on their welcome sign. Ah. A man can dream.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What about all the people living between the two cities?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Are they really that good at spray-art that everyone will know that those are supposed to be statists?

  • ||

    I'm just going to go and steal ProL's daughters. I've been watching them from his basement for years now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Basement?

  • ||

    Crawlspace, whatever.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Crawlspace?

  • Duke||

    My bet is that whatever laws are passed they: a) hurt small farmers and producers, and b) help Monsanto and other multi-national ag companies.

    I’ll never forget a farmer in my hometown who was sued into oblivion by Monsanto for not turning in his GMO cotton seeds. Not the seeds he originally purchased, but the seeds that were produced in the cotton boll once it bloomed. Monsanto claimed those seeds were still theirs.

  • Zeb||

    "NOW 100% FECES FREE"

  • UnCivilServant||

    Not true for "Organic" produce.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Or was that your point. The threading makes it hard to find the original post you replied to.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I didn't realize what a clusterfuck there was below the comment I responded to. I was just adding an example of accurate but silly and potentially misleading labeling. And of course, nothing is truly 100% feces free.

  • GILMORE||

    "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" = the Gift That Keeps On Giving

  • John||

    Dear Prudence, our nanny may own a gun. OMG!!!!!

    . Nanny's Got a Gun: Our toddler has been in a wonderful day care center since September, and she has grown particularly attached to her primary caregiver, a young single woman in her late 20s. She and I recently shared a casual conversation about dating, and she emailed me with a sweet video of our daughter and offered to babysit if needed. I looked her up on Facebook, and one 10-month old post—registering gleeful delight after a weekend shooting various guns, and declaring her interest in getting a gun permit—caught my attention. While we realize her adventure, and wish, are entirely legal, this makes both my husband and me very uncomfortable since we have absolutely no interest in having guns anywhere near our child, our family, or our home. Prudie, what should we do? Tell the director of the day care? Just avoid hiring her to babysit our child? Simply chalk this up to the Second Amendment?

  • ||

    It sucks being an animist, doesn't it. OH NOES AN INANIMATE OBJECT IS EVIL!!!

    Reason and rationality are for suckers, I guess.

  • sarcasmic||

    Did you see that Charlize Theron convinced Sean Penn to destroy his 65 guns?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....earms.html
    That pussy must be something special to get him to do that.

  • PD Scott||

    Sean Penn had an arsenal?!

  • ||

    More Hollywood types than you think have a lot of guns.

  • PD Scott||

    Well thank God he's always been such a level headed, calm person, instead of the angry type who we all know will go on a killing spree.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm trying to find the article someone linked on here about the supposedly anti-gun hollywood types that owned arsenals and had special Cali conceal carry permits.

    Really, there are two types of anti-gunners. The animists and the ones that think that guns are fine for the modern aristocracy but are too dangerous for the hoi polloi. A lot of the hollywooders and armed guard having rich fall into camp two.

  • ||

    Yes indeed. Spielberg removed guns from ET but shoots skeet and trap with John Milius at their exclusive country club.

  • ||

    Or he's just an easily-manipulated moron, like most actors.

  • Brett L||

    Its Sean Penn. He has legendarily poor decision making skills.

  • sarcasmic||

    True.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Must be extra special.

    Charlize was 17 when her mother allegedly shot and killed her father after he threatened to take the actress' life during an alcohol-influenced rant

    Wikipedia says poppy physically assaulted mom and threatened both mom and Charlize before mom shot him. Shooting was ruled justified. Yep, would have been so much better without those cowardly killing machines. Charlize and mom could be six feet under today instead of poppy.

  • WTF||

    To be fair, I really don't believe Charlize was put on this earth to think.

  • sarcasmic||

    She was put on earth to have sex with me, but no one gave her the memo.

  • ||

    There are three good letters today: this one, the girlfriend weirded out by her BF's desire for a FFM threesome, and the last dude who is put off by the fact that his girlfriend thinks people who disagree with her politically are stupid and evil.

    But like Epi has said on numerous occasions, it's animism: babysitter likes guns, guns are inherently evil, ipso facto the babysitter is evil and may contaminate their precious little snowflake.

  • John||

    It is total animism. If there was any reason to think the woman was irresponsible, that would one thing. But the give away is the "absolutely no interest in having guns anywhere near our child", as if the guns have an agency of their own.

    That is animism.

  • From the Tundra||

    Several years ago, I actually had this conversation with the mother of one of my son's friends. She asked me if I had guns in the house. I said, sure, doesn't everyone? She said the same thing - "I'm not sure I feel safe having my child around guns, blah, blah , blah." Instead of telling her to take her poor kid and leave, I took the opportunity to share with her some valuable information: my guns are not capable of picking the lock of the safe, loading themselves and then terrorizing children. Nor are the five-year-olds. To her credit, she has never said another word in many years. I think her reaction is more reflex than anything else.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You clearly need smarter guns.

  • John||

    But the same mother would be totally okay if you had had a large dog or a swimming pool I bet.

  • From the Tundra||

    Yep, I had a German Shepherd, but no pool! Although, to be fair, that GSD was about the sweetest-tempered dog ever.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You have more restraint than I.

    "Good, get the fuck out."

  • Fluffy||

    Right, because if the babysitter touches a gun on the 1st of the month, and then babysits on the 15th of the month, that's "having guns around our child".

    Because the dark and evil gun spirit may jump into the baby sitter, ride her for 15 days, and then maybe jump into one of the child's toys, where it would then turn into Chuckie.

  • Floridian||

    Also ignorance. No thanks to all the morons that claim their gun just went off.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "I swear, it climbed out of the safe, loaded itself, climbed the stairs and shot her five times, all on its own."

  • ||

    Tell the director of the day care?

    Oh the bitch did NOT.

  • Zeb||

    I've noticed that a lot of people who start out with the kind of reaction to people owning guns that the letter displays start to come around to at least accepting that guns are normal and that not everyone who owns one is evil or insane when they start to realize how many people they know own and use guns. But I live in a place that is part white liberal land and part New England old school rednecks, and I suspect that people in more urban areas con maintain that sort of thinking for longer.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This law would say that *if* you want to claim you're non-GMO, you have to meet certain standards. But if *don't* want to make such a claim, you won't have to worry about government mandates. The granola types will only buy stuff with the labels, and the normals won't get hassled. Sounds fine.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But I suppose the regs might be drawn to exclude small organic farms, so I'm not going to endorse their specific bill.

  • Zeb||

    That would be the better way to do it. I can't justify forbidding putting anything true on a label, even if it is silly and irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    Slightly off topic:

    U.S. Medicare program wasted $172MILLION of your taxpayer dollars on penis pumps
    The Medicare program spent the cash between 2006 and 2011
    It paid for nearly 474,000 claims for vacuum erection systems
    Yearly claims for devices nearly doubled from $20.6m in 2006
    Government waste is major issue in budget talks in Washington


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....pumps.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    lol, gives a whole new meaning to the term big government

    badjokesbadjokeswhatyagonnado.com

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Big, swollen government.

  • Duke||

    I’ve heard calls from pundits in response to the Obamacare calamity that we “should have just expanded Medicare to cover everyone.”

  • creech||

    I can't imagine how such a device can work. I always considered such things to be on a par with quack medical devices or those "x-ray" glasses thingies you saw in comic books. But I guess if the gov't has spent millions on them, they must work, no?

  • Agammamon||

    Wait, can't a company *already* labe; their food 'non-GMO'?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I thought so too. Especially because I've seen items labeled as such.

    Most notably was the SALT that was labeled non-gmo. Uh, there's no G to M, and it's not an O....

  • PD Scott||

    So, after GMO labeling comes to pass, will the anti-GMOs insist on any GMO food being shrink-wrapped to prevent any contamination of their precious "natural" food?

  • UnCivilServant||

    They can shrink wrap their precious dirt food and let the science food prosper.

  • PD Scott||

    Let plastic touch their food?!? Do you want them to all die of cancer or something?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Do you want them to all die of cancer or something?

    Yes.

  • ||

    I can't believe you people still engage with Bo Cara. Do you really want to help an autistic virginal law student moron troll get his jollies?

  • ||

    They argue with completely obvious sockpuppets like Tony and shriek; what makes you think they won't with an autistic virgin law student dipshit?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Isn't the whole point of the internet to argue?

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's not arguing.

    It's masturbation.

  • waffles||

    Well I for one hope they keep going. I am still not perfectly clear on the difference between ad hominem and a savage insult. Need more examples.

  • ||

    It's like this. You're wrong, and you're a moron, and, somehow, you're also wrong because you're a moron.

  • ||

    Shut up, moron.

  • ||

    You ad hom-ed me! That means I win the argument!

  • ||

    Win, lose...I'm the guy with the gun. Moron.

  • ||

    There's two kinds of people in this world. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig. Moron.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Shut up, moron.

    I'm going to need more than your word, and my plain eyes, to believe that Warty is a moron. Do you have any public opinion polls by reputable firms that back this claim?

  • ||

    Here's my poll of shut the fuck up. Does that satisfy?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    One of my law professors told me that I'd need more than my word to prove I'm not a Virgin, so no, it doesn't satisfy. And you don't need to swear at me.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    And...

    Yeah, it definitely... definitely doesn't satisfy.

  • ||

    Jesus, I can't believe how immature and cliquish you guys are being. The fact that Bo has never convinced another human to touch his hideous, shriveled penis has absolutely no bearing on the correctness of his incredibly stupid argument.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Don't forget to make sure the poll is broken down by race, gender, pubic hair, political leanings, exact GPS coordinates, and whether or not they like twinkies.

    Otherwise it's just invalid.

  • waffles||

    I have it on good authority that Warty is an anthropomorphic toad, moron.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think people *cough john cough* think that if they don't argue then everyone will think that they are ceding the "argument".

    When in fact, if they stopped arguing we'd thank them profusely for not ruining another thread. Seriously guys, arguing minutia and semantics with troll is a more a sign of idiocy and weakness than anything.

  • ||

    Speaking of idiocy and weakness, how's your mom doing?

  • General Butt Naked||

    She died of cancer when I was a kid, which was really stupid and weak of her.

    At least she's not a whore like Epi's mom.

  • ||

    She died? Do you have any polling data to support that?

  • General Butt Naked||

    89% of my dad's blackouts agree that mom's cowardly passsing ruined his life.

  • ||

    I can't believe you expect me to be convinced by an argumentum ad alcholum. Didn't your law school professors teach you anything?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Only one out of one pathologists, the sameple size was too small to be definitive.

  • ||

    Do you really want to help an autistic virginal law student moron troll get his jollies?

    They're sleeping with him too?!?

  • waffles||

    C'mon autismos aren't really into touching. They just take a long peacock feather and get it as close as possible to the skin without touching. Titillations abound.

  • ||

    Plus, my polling data indicates that he has no functioning genitals.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yeah, definitely... definitely no genitals.

  • ||

    Dr Waffles: Everything was fine with our system until the discussion was hijacked by dickless here.

    New Tulpa: They caused an argument!

    ProL: Is this true?

    Dr. Warty: Yes it's true.

    [pause]

    Dr. Warty: This man has no dick.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It is just as much horseshit that businesses are not allowed to label items as non-genetically modified as it is to require companies to label items as being genetically modified or non-genetically modified.

  • Zeb||

    This is very true. If you want to forbid labeling things as GMO-free, you should also forbid Kosher, Halal, etc. labeling as they are at least as arbitrary and meaningless from a scientific point of view. People get to decide for themselves what kind of whacky dietary restrictions they want.

  • SIV||

    "SoCon Teabaggers say GMO foods make Baby Jesus cry"

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Is there a single Tea Party group pushing anti-GMO policies?

  • RishJoMo||

    I like the sound of these things, for sure.

    www.Anon-Global.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement