Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Some supermarkets and restaurants voluntarily disclose the specific source of their produce and meats, mainly as a vanity thing: "Look at this privately owned business we're supporting by buying their potatoes directly instead of from the mass market."
But you can't do that with the contents of a packaged, processed food, because the supply chain makes the source inherently fungible, and changing your manufacturing process so that you can guarantee that the grain that went into batch 4582514 of Sugar Wheat Bombs came from Pop's Farm in Iowa would be enormously expensive.
Smaller manufacturers might be able to do that, since they tend to establish supply chains with specific providers, but the global firms couldn't.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:08:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The EU has done that legally
.
Of course, "organic" labels come with their own problems. I've heard about small businesses having trouble getting certified organic because there's a ton of paperwork and bureaucracy involved. You'd think that the small farm literally down the street would be exactly the sort of thing "organic" shoppers are looking for, but a lot of them can't actually get an organic label.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:12:34 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
That rule protects the trademarked origin labeling of specific foodstuffs, such as "Beauregarde's Winery" or "Minerva Cheeses", from being imitated deceptively. It has nothing to do with requiring origin labeling, as I read it.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:12:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
x7 Most already do by region and/or state but farms would help weed out recalls. I was thinking more of what pesticides were used, any genetic engineering, routes taken, exactly what type of fruit it is like if its actually a hybrid like a Honeycrisp
and yada.
x8 Or make an informed decision via facts decided by a neutral party? A whole Nutritional Facts thing. Hopeful but yeah not likely.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:13:33 AM by Memers
Most of that information is utterly irrelevant to the consumer. If there is a need for recalls, products are already batch-labeled by their manufacturers.
Seriously, you want to be able to boycott a product based on which pesticides were used on it? There's such a thing as too much detail. Anyway, considering that the source of most consumer information on what's healthy and what isn't is blatantly biased and/or sensationalized, you're basically asking to create the Panic of the Week.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:16:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think it's required in the UK for fresh fruit, vegetables and meat. As an aside, the UK is the sort of place where Mc Donalds boast of using "100% British and Irish Beef".
Keep Rolling OnWith those, at least it's a meaningful distinction. So it's fine with me.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My issue with GMOs is that they can be patented... I do not think it is right to patent organisms in general and the Roundup people, Monsanto, are their own special kind of evil. That being said, the worry about GMOs is silly... After all, if there is any organization who I want judging if GMOs are safe to consume, it is the FDA who have very strict guidelines already about food and drugs. If we cannot trust the FDA, then who can we trust to tell us that our food and drugs are safe?
edited 11th Apr '16 9:29:20 AM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyThere is talk of making large companies better track supply chains in the US, but it's always been more tied to tracking down ecoli outbreaks and the like then letting consumers track down where their food is from.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
One of the more reasonable concerns about GMO foods is indeed that they involve intellectual property rights that allow agribusinesses to pull some pretty shady tactics, like suing a farmer if seeds from a GMO crop get into his land.
I am not a huge fan of patenting nature. And creating plants with a straight up better fitness than their natural counterparts will eventually cause the disappearance of non-resisting strains - the ones that are not owned by whomever created the resistance in the first place.
And I somehow doubt that these disease- and pest-resistant strains will last forever without needing some chemicals. Some new viruses, bacteria or fungi will appear and threaten them, or some insects will replace the native fauna that can't eat anymore, and you'll need a new treatment to get rid of them while you are looking for another genetic improvement, if you can find one. So GMO + chemicals.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:33:14 AM by Julep
We've been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years. You don't think those giant, red apples and massive ears of corn were found in the wild before we domesticated said crops, do you? Seriously, folks.
Now, there is a legitimate problem with homogenizing the genome of a food species such that it is possible for a newly evolved disease vector to threaten the food supply because there isn't enough variation for resistant strains to arise, but that has also been an issue for centuries.
There is nothing magically "right" or "wholesome" about food species in their natural state. All you're doing is an Appeal to Nature.
The human species would have a hard time if we had social breakdown to the point where our food industries could no longer maintain our highly dependent food animals and crops, but that'd be only a small part of our problems.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:38:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But those cultivated crops did not appear during eras that are already characterized by massive species extinction like it is the case in the last century - there is a matter of rhythm and current state of the ecosystem.
And I might be a scientist, I have no idea what the eventual consequences will be when you take evolutionary shortcuts using genetic engineering.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:40:38 AM by Julep
![]()
I agree in principle, but that has nothing to do with GMO labeling per se, unless your objective is not to consume healthy or environmentally friendly products but rather to stick it to the man.
All I hear is vague fears that genetic engineering will bring about the doom of us all. You'll pardon if I refuse to buy them in the absence of credible proof.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:41:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's a) Strawmanning b) not the most important point compared to the issue of denying farmers - the poorer ones - the possibility to cultivate their own crops and c) an irresponsible move when natural diversity has been dropping during the last 50 years.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:45:01 AM by Julep
There are also cases where genetically modifying something is better than the "natural" way of getting there. Case in point—trying to produce hornless cows. As my fiancee (whose background is in animal behaviour) noted, turning off the gene that produces horns is a lot less invasive and harmful than forcing hornless cows to breed with their relatives to keep the hornless gene in circulation.
This falls more under the Animal Rights thread. I know, cows have evolved over millenias, but I hope there are at least some ethical considerations before creating hornless animals for what I assume is a purely mercantile goal.
As for GMO in vegetals, since horizontal gene transfer is a thing - a rare thing, but a thing nonetheless, see Agrobacterium tumefaciens - then it raises a lot of questions on the meaning of "intellectual property", and requires a proper debate on ethics - which I agree is not encouraged by some very vocal opponents to GMO.
But since right now all decisions are taken with only $$$ in mind, and nature conservation is a very distant priority if it is one at all, I have no issues at all to be among the less enthusiastic group. Even if my opinions are somewhat twisted to turn me into some kind of Luddite.
edited 11th Apr '16 9:56:51 AM by Julep
Fuck ethics, I want my Frankenfruit.
Frankenfruit! Frankenfruit! Frankenfruit! Frankenfruit!
(—————————————————————————————————————)
The audience wasn't happy.
edited 11th Apr '16 11:23:21 AM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company."Natural diversity" is something of a strawman; it's been declining ever since humans started agriculture and it may be an inevitable consequence of our domestication of our planet. I've already agreed with respect to the IP issues, but if the end goal is to provide a sustainable agricultural environment for humanity...
Let's just say that our worship of the "small farmer" is really misplaced. There is nothing noble or magical about using your hands to grow crops instead of machinery or being a private enterprise instead of a corporation. Obsolete way of life is obsolete, sorry guys.
Heck, growing crops in soil is obsolete, too: aeroponics all the way. Too bad we're still stuck in that model.
edited 11th Apr '16 11:16:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Labelling food may be a minor cost but it's really really pointless.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman