Skip to main content

Any connection between issues of GMO labeling and monopoly beer?

Yes, I think so. The connection is "market failure" in the supply of public goods by an "unregulated" market. Regulation needs labeling.

This morning's post about science and GMO's clicked for me with this item about "big" beer's challenge to "craft" beers .

In the GMO case, I see no SCIENTIFIC objection to LABELING. The scientific evidence apparently shows no harm in CONSUMING GMO foods. But no scientific evidence is required to justify LABELING, which is (and should be) merely disclosure of truthful information.

The harm I see (the market failure) comes in the concentration of food system control; widespread monocropping threatens future food supply through elimination of plant diversity. Seed banks preserve numerous varieties for potential future needs. How are they to identify GMO seeds if not by labeling?

In the CRAFT BEER case, the powerful giant brewers reportedly have not succeeded in stemming the growth of craft breweries. Labeling is very much present. It allows beer drinkers to discriminate for any reason. A big reason is to support local business and preserve jobs. Read the article. Down near the end you find this:

For its part, Big Beer has responded to the declining popularity of its goods in two ways. The first is relentless cost cutting. When Belgian mega-brewer InBev bought US corporate beer giant Bud in 2008, it very quickly slashed 1,400 jobs, about 6 percent of its US workforce. And the laser-like focus on slashing costs has continued, as this aptly titled 2012 BusineseWeek piece "The Plot to Destroy America's Beer" shows.

Ersatz "craft" beers include Shock Top, Blue Moon, Leinenkugel, Killian's, Batch 19, and Third Shift.

The second is to roll out phony craft beers—brands like ShockTop and Blue Moon—and buy up legit craft brewers like Chicago's Goose Island, which inBev did in 2011. Other ersatz "craft" beers include Leinenkugel, Killian's, Batch 19, and Third Shift. The strategy has been successful, to a point. Bloomberg reports that InBev has seen its Goose Island and Shock Top sales surge.

But there's a catch: These stealth Big Beer brands aren't "putting the microbrewers who started the movement out of business," Bloomberg reports. Rather, "the new labels are taking sales from already-troubled mass-market brands owned by the industry giants peddling these crafty brews." In other words, consumers aren't dropping Sierra Nevada or Dogfish Head and reaching for the Shocktop. Rather, ShockTop sales are being propped up by refugees from Bud Light and the like.

The reason for labeling is to allow purchasers to apply their VALUES in selecting their purchases. It is MARKET FAILURE when public goods are sacrificed to private gain and purely "scientific" evaluation.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Science and GMO labeling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crider, wilderness voice

    Science is a big value for me and most of you readers. I see a big propaganda push to exploit the VALUE OF SCIENCE to turn the reality-based community against the movement for GMO labeling. I want to see some pushback from those of us who see the importance of SOCIAL VALUES as well as science.

  •  No harm in consuming (4+ / 0-)

    You say:  

    scientific evidence apparently shows no harm in CONSUMING GMO foods.
    If that is the case, why should companies that use GMO ingredients have to incur the expense of labeling, if there is no health reason required for the labeling?  Why instead couldnt companies that do NOT use GMO ingredients label their products as such?  Since there is such a negative impression of GMO crops, surely labeling your product as GMO-free would increase sales, correct?

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

    by Brian A on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:37:15 AM PDT

    •  What "negative impression" ??!! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brian A, NoMoreLies, Crider, Kevskos

      What "negative impression" of GMO crops? The science world and general public thinks they are GREAT! The pushback is due to concerns with monopoly, with social and environmental consequences of concentrating ownership, eliminating jobs, monocropping in the food system.
      These are the sorts of concerns I expect to be expressed here at DKOS.

      I'm not personally afraid to eat GMO, but would favor local and sustainable sources if available. Problem is, the giant food monopolies are doing their best to corner the food market. GMO, especially the PATENTING OF SEEDS, is a big part of that corporate conspiracy.

      •  I agree with most of what you wrote, (2+ / 0-)

        but not about the overall positive impression of GMOs.  I'd say if you polled all the users of DKos, at least 75% would be against them, either for economic reasons (as you effectively outline above), or for spurious health reasons.  And look at Europe.  Mass protests and destruction against all forms of GMOs, even those researched and grown by public universities, and nations banning them left and right.

        I think the biggest problem is, there is a large kernel of truth in why we should be against corporate GMOs, as you discuss.  But that is buried within other, less valid concerns, like health effects, etc.

        "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

        by Brian A on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 05:03:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Point well taken (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A

          I don't think safety of consumers is the big concern. We probably can agree to a large extent.

          Regarding labeling, I doubt Monsanto would stand idly by to allow non-GMO products to label as such. I seem to recall years ago big dairy interests wanting not to label growth hormones (?) or something like that.

          •  Yeah I don't get that one, with the growth (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nuclear winter solstice

            hormones.  Nowadays, if you notice, milk products PROUDLY tout that they come from cows not treated with rBST (growth hormone), but then, the fine print underneath states that "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows."  Its like they are trying to have it both ways.

            "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

            by Brian A on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 05:14:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  again, leaving health aside, in a market glutted (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              unfangus, Brian A

              with milk, why do we need to give growth hormones to fewer cows and make their bodies work harder than normal to make more milk with less overhead for Big Agribusiness? There are many many small farms making craft cheeses out here in my neck of the woods.

              Also-RBGH is the issue upon which FOX News won the legal right to call themselves news, even while requiring their reporters to change their story. The reporters did not, firing ensued...

              We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

              by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  alas, whenever I say that, I get accused of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A

          Being a paid shill for Monsanto. Funny. With some people that accusation is just a typical emotional tribal response. With others it's a personal pissing for criticizing their pet issue. But it is always amusing, since I've been a syndicalist anarchist since I was 16 (and naturally we even have our resident Pope of Leftism here to constantly pronounce that I'm not a Real Anarchist(tm)(c) because I don't agree with him).

          The Left hasn't changed in 50 years. It's still just as chimp tribal as always. (shrug)

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I completely agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A

          Lots of issues/problems are lurking around the periphery of GMOs: intellectual property law is a mess - and not just for agricultural products, monoculture and habitat loss have been problematic for a century, and the misuse of agricultural chemicals simply must be put to an end.  If anyone were to advocate for real solutions to the real problems that we face, then I would be right there offering to help with all the expertise and enthusiasm I could bring to bear.

          But we are not seeing that.  What we get is a network of enthusiasts, supported by a shady network of websites and rumor mills, who bundle all these important issues together but shade the meanings and muddle the issues until everything gets reduced to "banning GMOs will solve all our problems."

          Which is not true.   All the time and energy spent fighting over this false issue is time and energy not spent fixing the real issues, and it creates a great deal of resentment and suspicion within the community as well.  

          In the end, I see no way that labeling GMO products is helpful as anything other than a stalking horse - an intermediate step on the path towards a total GMO ban, a more easily achieved political victory.  So until some one convinces me otherwise, I can not support the GMO labeling people.

          •  do you oppose labeling NON-GMO? (0+ / 0-)

            I am moderate on the issue, but see nothing objectionable about labeling and regulation.

            Of course the right wingers want no regulation, every man/woman for his/her/itself..

            Planet is too small and precious to be left to the tender mercies of opportunistic extraction.

            Peace.

    •  What do you think of the beer story? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brian A, Crider

      Brian, it may be a stretch but did you look at the story about craft beers? Do you agree with me that consolidation in the beer industry appears to have negative social consquences (job losses)?

      My case is for LABELING, not for elimination of GMO's. For me this is closely linked to exploitive INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - patent and trademark. There are good reasons for recognizing intellectual property but when it works against the common good these result in MARKET FAILURE.

      •  Honestly, I don't see a connection (3+ / 0-)

        in what you wrote, between big beer's attack on craft beers, and GMOs.  I suppose there are parallels in the strategies of corporate-Ag companies like Monsanto to drive out small farmers, and the big beer companies, but otherwise the two are not connected.  I drink lots of craft beer and I rarely see anything about whether there were GMOs used in them or not.

        Besides, your second article, from Mother Jones, suggests that the strategy on the part of Big Beer is failing, attracting former drinkers of crap beers rather than craft beers.  I live in Philly and we have a great craft beer scene here: Yards, Victory, Dogfish Head, Flying Fish, and many others.  None of those are "fake" craft breweries.  When people want something cheaper, they order a Yuengling (or as they call it here, "lager"), and while Yuengling is certainly a big-beer company, they are also local and have been part of the culture for decades now.

        "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

        by Brian A on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 05:10:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Market failure to supply public goods (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brian A, Kevskos

          You make my point: You say

          I suppose there are parallels in the strategies of corporate-Ag companies like Monsanto to drive out small farmers, and the big beer companies, but otherwise the two are not connected.
          I was not concerned with GMO's in beer.

          The market failure involves eliminating small and diverse producers, elevating private profit above all else.

          You don't believe in the "invisible hand" of the market, do you?

          Peace.

          •  Aha, I see (0+ / 0-)

            I'm blindly reading all of this from the standpoint of the science (see my profile), not the economics, which is more of what you're getting at.

            But I do think the Mother Jones article you posted explains that, while Big-beer is pursuing this strategy, there is no evidence it is actually working or will actually work.

            "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

            by Brian A on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 05:19:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right, big beer not winning (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PeteZerria

              and the reason is because of consumer pushback. With GMO labeling, there would probably be less pushback, but enough to preserve a NICHE MARKET for non-GMO. And also, to protect our agricultural diversity.

              We need labeling in order to have the pushback potential. Not a matter of SCIENCE but rather of SOCIAL POLICY.

  •  That's not a market failure. It means there isn... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep

    That's not a market failure. It means there isn't enough demand for companies to market their goods as non-gmo.

    •  Market failure happens (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeteZerria, unfangus

      when big interests win out over the public interest. That is how I understand.

      In this case the public interest is to be informed, and free to act on the information. Labeling allows this. As you suggest, most people will not object to GMO's.

      Again, my concern is growth of monopoly, elimination of diversity, very much a SMALL BUSINESS orientation, really REPUBLICAN value (but I am most assuredly NOT a Republican).

      •  There's no market interest in GMO free food, he... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, mikidee

        There's no market interest in GMO free food, hence the lack of labeling. That's not the market failing; it's the market working.

        •  You don't know, (2+ / 0-)

          You merely TRUST the market to prevail. That is the discredited "invisible hand" theory. We KNOW better than to trust markets to supply public goods.

          I've seen here plenty of interest in GMO-free foods.

          •  Then have a sticker that label food as "Non-GMO" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mem from somerville

            There are two ways to label it.
            1. Treat all food as potential GMO, only consume food with "Non-GMO" label.
            2. Treat all food as non-GMO, avoid food with "GMO" label.

            Most here is trumpeting 2, but why not 1? It gets the same message across and can be started by Non-GMO growers to further distinguish their food.

            •  So you are ok labeling non-GMO? (0+ / 0-)

              Labeling is a contentious matter. I hope we can agree that REGULATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION are in principle a good thing. The issue would be WHO GETS TO WRITE the regulations, whether for public interest or private gain.

              I have a hunch that labeling non-gmo would be challenged. Producers would be asked to prove their product was gmo-free. How would they do that without disclosure of ingredients that ARE GMO?

      •  I don't like =\= market failure (0+ / 0-)

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/...

        In economics, market failure is when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. (The outcome is not Pareto optimal.) Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point of view.[1][2]
        Beer and other food and beverage providers are free to label their GMO-free products as GMO-free today, and they can truthfully promote to the public why GMO-free is better.

        You may think this is important, however few consumers have changed their buying to GMO-free.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 08:35:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I find it funny that the fringe anti-GMOers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kasoru, mem from somerville

    after YEARS of waving their arms about how dangerous and unsafe GMO foods are (they cause cancer in rats and ulcers in pig stomachs and kill people with allergies and cause half the diseases in modern America and gee who knows WHAT they could do in the future oh noez !!!)  NOW all of a sudden the fringe is falling all over itself to wave their arms and declare that all we want is labeling by golly and we don't have to show any harm to GMOs to get labeling because there isn't any harm to GMOs so don't ask us to show any because labeling really isn't about safety at all it's about freedomz and American valuez. So there.

    It'd be funny if it wasn't so goddamn dishonest.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 06:54:27 AM PDT

    •  Calling BS again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus

      Folks have asked for labeling since the beginning. Sure, there was hesitation to accept the technology but that is resolving in favor of GMO. However, LABELING is the only way to give consumers a choice.

      I say up front that the issues are monopoly, monocropping, reducing crop diversity, consolidation of the market. There are plenty of small farmers, especially beef producers, who have been hurt by market consolidation, and THE PUBLIC DOES NOT ALWAYS BENEFIT.

      This thread is as much or more about MONOPOLY and CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ABUSE as it is with GMO technology.

      •  anyone who reads any of the GMO diaries here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mem from somerville

        for the past few years, can see with their own eyes that your claim is simply baloney. Those diaries have been full to the brim with silly claims about cancer and Seralini and allergies and genes reaching the intestines and unknown health effects and kills gut flora and blah blah blah.

        PS--I have no gripe at all with labeling, though I think that, like calorie listings on menus, it will have zero real-world effect on anything since nobody will pay any attention to it. Despite the hopes of some and the fears of others.

        But I know find it interesting that when I state that my objections to Monsanto's use of GMO are political, social and economic and not scientific since nearly all of the "science" arguments against GMO are flat-out bullpucky, I got accused of being a Monsanto shill---and NOW the fringers are trying to claim that they've always agreed with me all along. It'd be funny if it wasn't so dishonest.

        But now that you understand there are NO scientifically valid safety issues with GMO food, I look forward to seeing you pipe up in future diaries to correct the idiotic claims of those who claim there ARE safety issues. Unless of course you follow Reagan's Eleventh Commandment . . .

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 08:55:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not accept that definition of market failure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lenny Flank

          That is free-market BS. "Efficiency" is the narrow standard which is promoted by right-wing ideologues including many/most "economists." (Economists may claim to be scientists but I do no agree.)

          For me, market failure is (includes) what I said, when the market does not value and protect PUBLIC GOODS.

          Here's a link that treats climate change as a market failure.

          Liveable climate and environment are public goods.

          Efficiency involves turning resources into waste as quickly as possible. Not a good model. Surely a bad idea when making love.

          •  I do not think your response was meant for me (0+ / 0-)

            Since it does not actually respond to anything I said.  :)

            And I agree about economists. Back in my younger days when I was Co-Chair of the General Executive Board of the IWW, I got invited often to speak to various groups. Once I was invited to speak to a classroom of economics majors, and told them economics wasn't a science--it's just an apologetic for the existing social order. I was not invited back to speak again.  :)

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 09:18:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lenny, you are right, my comment was to nextstep (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lenny Flank

              My comment regarding "efficiency" as a criterion was addressed to nextstep.

              You and I seem to agree about economics not being a science. Could we not also agree that "economic" criteria ("efficiency") often do not result in public good?

              I think we need to overrule efficiency IN THE PRIVATE EXTRACTION OF WEALTH, in favor of a social policy that preserves resources such as biological diversity.

              Of course the capture of government by monied private interests (and corruption, public and private) make it very difficult. However, that is the problem we face.

              •  well........ (0+ / 0-)

                I am an anarcho-socialist. I don't accept "the market", or "the private extraction of wealth".

                As for corporations, I advocate nationalizing them all, globally, and turning them into democratically-controlled public utilities.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 09:44:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But that's not anarcho-socialism (0+ / 0-)

                  First of all, anarcho-socialists don't support "nationalization", not supporting the concept of nationality. They support bottom up collectivism, and federations of collectives.

                  Secondly, anarcho-socialists would never support authoritarianism of "scientists", as in creating a technocracy, despite having enormous respect for science. This goes back to early anarchist thinkers like Bakunin, in his essays on theocracy, technocracy and authority.

                  All decisions in the end must be made not by special classes of technocrats, but by the people, themselves. Once we turn over authority and decision making to any elite body, the public is made into unthinking idiots. It fosters an unthinking, uninvolved public.

                  There is a lot of authoritarianism laced in the GMO debate, including that of proponents deeming it okay, or being dismissive of the issue that genetic contamination of plant species takes place, as if they can unilaterally decide the future of the biosphere, with no responsibility to anyone but themselves.

                  Opposing labeling as well, is completely authoritarian.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:13:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  thanks Your Holiness for correcting my heresy (0+ / 0-)

                    Yet again.

                    How did I know you would be along . . .

                    (yawn)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:26:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You knew I would be along just as (0+ / 0-)

                      the rest of us knew you would be along, despite your sense of privilege and ownership of all things "scientific".

                      You're basically arguing for technocracy.

                      And you've gone on record against the precautionary principle, which is basically asserting the primacy of elite authority over the interests of the public in safe guarding the environment and social impacts of technology.

                      No environmental organization would take you seriously after that admission.  

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:33:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  no I haven't (0+ / 0-)

                        I have gone on record opposing those who want the precautionary principle for things they already don't ideologically like, but DON'T want it for things they have no ideological objection to.

                        Like you.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  When in this entire debate (0+ / 0-)

                          have you ever cited the precautionary principle in the GMO issue?

                          You even ridicule labeling despite your stance of accepting it.

                          This is a group that applies the precautionary principle:

                          Does UCS Have a Position On GE?

                          Yes. We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production.

                          However, its applications in agriculture so far have fallen short of expectations, and in some cases have caused serious problems. Rather than supporting a more sustainable agriculture and food system with broad societal benefits, the technology has been employed in ways that reinforce problematic industrial approaches to agriculture. Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry PR campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland.

                          These are a few things policy makers should do to best serve the public interest:

                              Expand research funding for public crop breeding programs, so that a broad range of non-GE as well as GE crop varieties will remain available.
                              Expand public research funding and incentives to further develop and adopt agroecologically based farming systems.
                              Take steps—such as changes in patent law—to facilitate independent scientific research on GE risks and benefits.
                              Take a more rigorous, conservative approach to GE product approvals, so that products do not come to market until their risks and benefits are well understood.
                              Support food labeling laws that require foods containing GE crops to be clearly identified as such, so that consumers can make informed decisions about buying GE products.

                          "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                          by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:49:57 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  sorry ZR, i have no interest in your silly pissing (0+ / 0-)

                            contest.

                            Enjoy playing with yourself.

                            You may now have the last word. I suggest you use it once again to decry my heresy.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:57:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Heh... (0+ / 0-)

                            This from the the great pissing match warrior himself.

                            When have you EVER said one lousy word in support of the precautionary principle vis-a-vis GMOs?

                            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                            by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:00:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Must I remind you? (0+ / 0-)

                            This is your idea engaging people?

                            thanks Your Holiness for correcting my heresy (0+ / 0-)

                            Yet again.

                            How did I know you would be along . . .

                            (yawn)

                            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                            by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:03:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thanks ZhenRen, good catch (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ZhenRen

                            I guess UCS is Union of Concerned Scientists.

                            Precautionary Principal is too often carelessly tossed aside

                      •  but since you seem constitutionally incapable of (0+ / 0-)

                        Having a conversation without making everything a personal pissing match, I will once again end our conversation.

                        Have a nice day, and you may now use your last word to tell me once again what a heretic I am.  (yawn)

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:46:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  When you compare people constantly (0+ / 0-)

                          to, for example, the Birch Society you lost any claim of moral integrity from which to accuse others of making things personal.

                          "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                          by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:55:25 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Lenny I looked at your profile (0+ / 0-)

          and I would expect us to agree on many points.

          I don't follow GMO arguments that closely but I see no objection to labeling either GMO or non-GMO, what I object to is NOT labeling. Labels are harmless, they help consumers decide WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY.

          •  I am just as anti-corporate as any fringer here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mem from somerville

            I'm just not as paranoid about science being a Monsanto conspiracy oh noez.

            Most of the anti-GMO fringers here are motivated by an anti-corporate ideology that has been taken to a John Birch Society level of silliness.

            It's embarrassing to have them on the same side as me.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 09:24:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't put much stock (0+ / 0-)

            in Lenny's profile. He's no anarchist (see my sig). And I'd wager he would be thrown out of Greenpeace headquarters if he went there, calling them all stupid extremists akin to Birchers.

            Just my opinion, but I'd not take his self-described identification too seriously. He spends his life bashing people who don't support his views, and is extraordinarily intolerant.

            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

            by ZhenRen on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Labels are actually pretty strongly regulated. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville

    You can get in trouble for what you disclaim just as much as what you claim.

    The FFDCA pretty tightly regulates much of this.

    •  Yes, as they should be, labeling is regulated (0+ / 0-)

      The controversy is who gets to write the regulations. The deep pockets corporations and lobbyists have an inside track.

      I hope nobody here believes that the "invisible hand" can be trusted to protect PUBLIC GOODS. The free-market extremists don't even believe that there ARE public goods, only private; and no such thing as "society," only people.

      And that the planet would be best protected if it were all owned by a single multi-trillionaire.

  •  Brazilian farmers say Bt corn less resistant.. (0+ / 0-)

    What do I know? Not much. But here's an example of possible problems with GMO crops - diminished effectiveness adaptation of pests.

    http://readersupportednews.org/...

  •  What about the beer story? (0+ / 0-)

    The comments have been interesting but all about GMO issue.

    Anybody see the connection with the BEER STORY?

    I think the connection, though perhaps distant is how CONSUMER PUSHBACK can frustrate the monopolistic tendencies if predominant corporations and industries (like BIG BEER).

    We need GMO labeling to provide information so consumers can choose.

    In the craft beer case, clear labeling allows consumers to pushback against the monopolists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site