GMOs causing autism?! We report, you decide!

[Samson]

My recent thought was along these lines: We don't need GMO labeling. Since there is a market for non-GMO (even if it's only the equivalent of someone who wants their product de-demonized by a voodoo skypilot), any product that can make that claim will. Any product without the label can be assumed to be GMO.

The status quo lets the fact of GMO matter to those to whom it matters, without stigmatizing GMO products.

In Europe at least, this is not true. You can pretty much go shopping and assume you will not get any GM food, unless you buy processed food or other things that are likely to be shipped around the world (dried corn kernels, rape seed oil I can think of, not many others that I am likely to buy).

 

[warpus]

People also need to remember that eating a cake is certainly less healthy than eating a bowl of spinach, GMO or non-GMO.

I work in an office full of house wives and have been fighting this crazy insistence to eat as many cakes, cupcakes, and other baked goods as possible. Whenever we get together for birthday celebrations and other events, there's always this crap.. and cake does taste good, so you can either show up and try to fight your urges, or just not show up and be healthy that way. On top of all that people bring in random baked things for all to share, every once in a while. It's not a very healthy environment in that regard, yet they completely don't get that it is and insist on eating and sharing their stupid super sweet baked goods.

When I first started my "carbs bad, fat good!" rabblery, I got huge amounts of blowback from the ladies in the office.. They LOVE their baked goods. It is so bad for you though, I've kept up my assault, and now instead of birthday parties we do monthly get-togethers, where we bring in whatever food we want.. So there's less cake and less cupcakes, but the office culture still in some way revolves around crap like that. For my birthday I'm going to ask for bacon. Or soup. I don't even care about candles, but if you can figure out how to stick a candle into a bowl of soup, I won't mind.

It'd be awsome if it didn't taste as good as it does... another issue I have with it is that the icing is just too damn sweet. It's completely and utter overkill... and yet it tastes so good.

/1st world problems?

 

[Zelig]

When I first started my "carbs bad, fat good!" rabblery, I got huge amounts of blowback from the ladies in the office..

Well I'd give you flak for that too, it's pretty much impossible to eat too many carbs if they're sufficiently low-GI.

 

[warpus]

Well I'd give you flack for that too, it's pretty much impossible to eat too many carbs if they're sufficiently low-GI.

Their flak was not so specific. Their flak consisted of "We will continue bringing in and consuming super sugary baked goods, because .. that is tradition. Now go away."

 

[El_Machinae]

Less true than you'd think, Zelig. Low GI and satiety are only partially related. All the available carbs in a low GI food will eventually become metabolised, so you can overeat.

In the end, you need to watch calorie density and satiety.

 

[Farm Boy]

In Europe at least, this is not true. You can pretty much go shopping and assume you will not get any GM food, unless you buy processed food or other things that are likely to be shipped around the world (dried corn kernels, rape seed oil I can think of, not many others that I am likely to buy).

That's part of Europe's clever "It's not protectionism! protectionism." I mean that's fine, I support subsidization and protectionism for national food production but at least have the guts to call it what it is.

 

[Zelig]

Less true than you'd think, Zelig. Low GI and satiety are only partially related. All the available carbs in a low GI food will eventually become metabolised, so you can overeat.

In the end, you need to watch calorie density and satiety.

"if they're sufficiently low GI and you exercise enough."

or

"to eat too much as proportion of total calories"

Spit-balling for the second - presumably one could design a 2000 Calorie low-GI diet with critically low protein/fat, but it seems pretty difficult to happen upon that accidentally if you're just low-GI restricted.

 

[Samson]

That's part of Europe's clever "It's not protectionism! protectionism." I mean that's fine, I support subsidization and protectionism for national food production but at least have the guts to call it what it is.

I do not see this as the same thing at all. We are saying that we do not want to produce food using GMO's, and if you want to import this food to us you have to label it as such.

I am not arguing that Europe does not have massive protection for the regions farmers (cf. CAP). I strongly disagree with it, but understand the reasons (WW2 starvation being one), and this is clearly protectionism. GM labelling is something quite different.

"if they're sufficiently low GI and you exercise enough."

or

"to eat too much as proportion of total calories"

Spit-balling for the second - presumably one could design a 2000 Calorie low-GI diet with critically low protein/fat, but it seems pretty difficult to happen upon that accidentally if you're just low-GI restricted.

I do not know. My diet is roughly "take a normal diet, and replace the high GI components with cabbage". This gets a 2000 Calorie low-GI diet with fairly low protein/fat.

 

[Farm Boy]

Looks like intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Smells like intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Has the same economic effects as intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Has no health impacts as far as science can show. Aight, it's different because reasons if you want it to be?

 

[Samson]

Looks like intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Smells like intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Has the same economic effects as intentional product advantage/disadvantage through regulation. Has no health impacts as far as science can show. Aight, it's different because reasons if you want it to be?

We have decided as a trading block that we want to heavily regulate the use and sale of GM organisms, for reasons. If you want to sell these products in our trading block you have to tell the consumer that they are such, as generally we can assume products we buy are not such.

If you are talking about product advantage/disadvantage, you were allowed to make something that is a direct competitor to something we make, that is cheaper to make, and we are not allowed to make it like you do, as there are questions over its impact on the body/population/environment. If you were to sell it indistinguishably from what we can make would that not put you at the advantage?

 

[Farm Boy]

If you are talking about product advantage/disadvantage, you were allowed to make something that is a direct competitor to something we make, that is cheaper to make, and we are not allowed to make it like you do, as there are questions over its impact on the body/population/environment. If you were to sell it indistinguishably from what we can make would that not put you at the advantage?

Exactly. Why do I disagree with people when they already agree with my points?

 

[Samson]

Exactly. Why do I disagree with people when they already agree with my points?

Glad we agree, but more glad that that made some sort of sense, after re-reading it I find it a bit difficult to read.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I don't think I'm taking quite the same thing away from what we agree on as you are. I'm attempting give policymakers the credit of having a good reason for doing this rather than an anti-science unsubstantiated reason, one that's wearing thinner and thinner as time goes on, and the only good reason I've been coming up with is economic protectionism. Even with a "more level" playing field, I think the EU(probably rightfully so) considers the price of American agricultural imports to be an economic threat that needs to be counterbalanced.

 

[warpus]

The reason "GMO inside" labels exist anywhere is that people are paranoid, and policy makers pander to the masses. The labels don't tell you anything useful, you might as well put stickers on tomatoes that say: "These tomatoes have been made using electricity". Utterly useless label that will only scare people from buying perfectly healthy food.

 

[Narz]

Whether any and all GMO's are "perfectly healthy food" or not will only be known for sure in a few decades (and then of course we'll know the effects on GMO's from this age, future GMO's will have be tested over long periods of time also).