Standard Pages (they don't change often)

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Giving In to False Balance










  1. Yes. I'm more from the Jon Entine school of thought that we need to be more aggressive and active in our defense of science and this idea that we lose a crucial battle to somehow win a war is nonsense. Instead, we will lend credibility to the activists and the incredible claims they lean on.

  2. While I'm not an overt fan of labeling, I don't really see your argument here. The idea that industry transparency is a strawman is not clear to me. To their discredit, industry has done little to address the issue. The recent legal wrangling in WA, for example, only serves to reenforce this perception. Perhaps there is some good business rationale to this approach that I don't understand, but for the agriculture and the science they use, it is a problematic distraction and could potentially lead to much more drastic consequences if they continue this perception of nontransparency.

    I also fail to see the burden you propose. Lynas's proposal is a federal one. Presumably, that would be designed and carried out by an agency like the FDA, most likely with input from industry groups and possibly the public. The exact wording and placement would be standardized and uniform across product lines and types. Yes, there is a one time cost to tax payers, but implimentation by industry would be minimal. Testing and enforcement? Maybe we are thinking of different things here, but this will only be necessary if actual quantities are specified. A "May Contain" label, even if designated by specific ingredient types, would require no testing or enforcement. This is no different than a label specifying that a product was produced in a facility that also processes peanuts. There are no testing and enforcement requirements there. Like I said, maybe I have something different in my head, but this is more what I was thinking of in regard to Lynas's speech.

    For me, I think you have missed the true problem with such labeling requirements. That would be the dilution and perversion of the purpose of such labels. This type of mandatory labeling should be reserved for demonstrable adverse health effects, not "I want to know" requests. Labeling GM, especially generic GMO labels, have no place in this regard due to their proven safety record.