The GMO-labelling movement is about faith, not facts.
The fight over genetically modified ingredients is almost over. The industry is backing down. In the next few months, one way or another, packaged foods made with GMOs will be labeled at your supermarket.
The only question that remains is how, exactly, the labels will be regulated and to what extent. The first state law to require GMO disclosures, passed two years ago in Vermont, comes into force this July, and recent efforts to reverse it—in the courts and in Congress—have failed. Now the big players in the food industry are lining up to make concessions to widespread public sentiment and to stave off conflicting and confusing legislation. In January, the Campbell Soup Co. (which also manufactures Swanson broths, Pepperidge Farm cookies, and V8) promised it would label all its U.S. products to indicate which contain ingredients derived from GMOs. Last week, General Mills and Mars Food made a similar announcement, and then so did Kellogg and ConAgra.
For huge companies like these, the real-life facts about GMOs—I mean, the facts about their actual effects, or noneffects, on human health and the environment—are secondary. So what if advocates for labeling come off as anti-science zealots or denialists with no more respect for expert consensus than a bunch of climate skeptics? So what if study after study shows that GM foods are safe? The people want what they want. Transparency sells.
If you’re the kind of person who frets over Americans’ lack of scientific literacy, this accommodationist position may send you into a sputtering rage. A person’s right to know, you might contend, should be in balance with his or her right to avoid unnecessary panic. The mere presence of a label has dire implications. It tells consumers that there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between GMO and non-GMO ingredients—a “material“ difference in the language of the Food and Drug Administration—and one that should be taken seriously. Yet “genetic modification” describes a process, not an end result, and there’s no evidence that this process leads to special risks. Some bioengineered options on the supermarket shelf could be better for your health than other products. Some could be better for independent farmers and their families. And some could be worse. The scarlet GMO blankets all this variation and replaces it with dread.
full: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/03/the_gmo_labeling_movement_is_about_faith_not_facts.html
I don't get it. DU will laugh at creationists and anti-vaccine kooks, both of whom hold pseudoscientific views not supported by most of the literature. Same with Bigfoot hunters or conspiracy theorists. But anti-GMO propaganda gets lots of recs and the greatest section. Even though the supposed case for GMO labeling ("it'll help consumers make an informed decision!"
is just as full of it as the case for voter ID laws ("they'll prevent fraud!" . Why? WHY?
= new reply since forum marked as read
And Kimbrell, Jeffrey Smith (three times!).... Oh, goodness, indeed.
Heck, you even have this guy in there:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/01/864-jonathan-latham-allison-wilson.html
And this guy:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2015/06/1398-ty-bollinger.html
Oh, and as for your friend, Jeffrey Smith:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/09/1157-jeffery-smith.html
So you are supporter of snake oil peddlers? Really?
PS:
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
The debate over genetically modified organisms is a great case study in how to think critically.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html
That's your response?
Just talking about a homeowner who grows veggies in the backyard garden (no pesticides, saves his own seeds each year). We live in a duplex. They live in the other 1/2. He has a hive at the back of the yard near the woods. Lots of farms grow corn around here, though, so I have to assume GMO + pesticides. He's lost 2 hives of bees in the last two years. 
Sorry, I can't tell you who it was. 
Rodale has been pushing pseudoscience for decades. You really should be more careful where you put your trust. Rodale is a money making con machine.
Again, I don't really care about your opinion on this matter. The only reason you're not on ignore is that sometimes you post something worth reading
And I don't know why they wouldn't promote the work they're doing with the USDA. And I'm sorry I made my earlier statements of character.
Just so you know, one reason I don't read such reports is I don't have much of a science background (a long since passed and failed attempt at a geology degree.) The terminology tends to make my eyes glaze over. I'm glad you can read that stuff and could figure it out. Whereas I can only recognize some of it, and then it just becomes way too much effort on my part to decipher it all. I'd rather share with those more apt to read them 
is about like having two people talk to you at once. I have used a form of guided meditation that uses that very technique and it's quite interesting. You eventually tune out both streams of talking (a different one in each ear) and relax. It's a means of getting messages through, such as for losing weight, and improving other things about oneself. And I can't remember what it's called now..
Anyway, yes I realize that about Wikipedia. I guess I'm thinking of some topics where I had read the "Talk" section and didn't agree with most of the reasons why something was being deleted. Those get just as heated as discussions here
You are asking to label a single seed development technology, while not labeling all the other seed development technologies. And knowing that technology tells you nothing about the food itself, how it was grown, what modification was made, etc...
It's disinformation of the worst kind, and it's all derived from organic companies' ugly marketing campaign to demonize a specific seed development technology.
So, yes, indeed!
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
Thanks!
