Pet_Sounds

Regardless, if the vast majority of people think they should be labelled, shouldn't we listen to the will of the people?

Poll: Skepticism of Genetically Modified Foods - ABC News

93% of respondents said "the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified, or 'bio-engineered' (this poll used both phrases)."

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

Frownland

If the will of the people is based on an unscientific premise (in this case, the idea that GMOs are unhealthy/dangerous), then no. Much in the same way that we shouldn't (I would say don't but that's not realistic) allow the public's opinions on climate change affect public policy. Because as a rule of thumb, the public is dumb as ****. That's why the gubment exists in the first place.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Pet_Sounds

"Moral questions are outside the scientific realm." —Richard Feynman

The role of scientists is to serve as advisors, not to dictate policy. And the public's opinions on climate change currently ARE affecting public policy, albeit indirectly (through their choice of leader).

Additionally, I question whether or not there is a scientific consensus on GMOs. Both the EU and Japan have regulations regarding the labelling of products that contain GMOs. Those nations are certainly not anti-science. Also, here's a pretty important geneticist who's worried about GMOs.

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

duga

We are talking about the economic impact, though....what does science have to do with that? You need me to convince you GMOs are safe?

The one line responses are not really motivating me to give you more.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

duga

Certainly we need to mitigate risk - the biggest concern is killing genetic diversity. Which basically every scientist agrees we need to address - even pro-GMO scientists.

I used to research GMO's and my master's thesis was on using genetic modification to suss out genetic pathways and gene families to better control biomass production. Knowing a bit more on the topic than the average bear, I can say confidently there is no proof GMOs are harmful to humans.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

duga

Sure, it would be nice. But it would be too prohibitive and a waste of money. This isn't just a sticker slapped on a piece of fruit that says "GMO"...people want details. Details they don't understand and will scare them from buying affordable, safe, and a lot of times healthier than organic products. There's just so much more nuance to this than people seem to understand.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Janszoon

It's nice read comments from someone who actually knows what they're talking about!

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Pet_Sounds

Sure, people want details, but it seems the vast majority of them also want a label. Doesn't holding out make GMOs seem scary? Ultimately, I think people should have the choice to avoid them if they want to, whether their reasons for doing so are sound or not.

(For the record, I agree with you on the safety of GMOs and I'm personally indifferent on whether or not they're labelled. I just have to write a paper on this.)

__________________
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

Frownland

I don't consider it a moral issue to be honest. I agree with the quote, but I would also add that morals can (and should be) directly be influenced and strengthened when it's backed up by solid science.

Yes, but many of those who dictate policy do not always get their scientific advice from scientists or valid studies.

This is why I said shouldn't instead of don't.

Your teacher will mark you down for combining a bandwagon fallacy with an appeal to authority. What did evidence they use to support this particular decision? Everything should be inspected case by case instead of assuming that these are good decisions because they have a history of it.

That link used a lot of the common arguments that have been addressed several times that I don't want to get into, but I'll say that it's largely an argument from ignorance, since there hasn't been any valid evidence of GMOs being harmful. I don't think that that kind of mindset should dictate policy. Also, many of the arguments against GMOs in the backlink to his other blog post blame GMOs for bad farming practice when that's really on the farmer.

The best thing to do is to look at the meta-analysis. Here are a couple that I didn't read entirely.

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...eedAccess=true


Also do you know who else wanted to put labels on something based on its genetics? HITLER!

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

The Batlord

Do you seriously think the common people aren't idiots though?

__________________