Posted on 10/13/2016 1:23:27 PM PDT by Kaslin
We live in the information age, which is called that for the same reason the ice age got its name: an overwhelming proliferation of the stuff. We automatically assume that more information is better than less. But as the dinosaurs learned about ice, even something useful can be dangerous in excess.
The lesson is, so far, lost on most lawmakers and regulators. In July, President Barack Obama signed a bill requiring foods containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled as such. It's an outwardly innocuous requirement that is supposed to leave consumers better informed but will actually cause many to be misled.
The implication of the mandate is that there is some important difference between foods that contain GMOs and foods that don't. But there isn't. A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that genetically engineered food is safe for humans, animals and the environment.
This scientific reality is at odds with public opinion. A June poll by ABC News showed that only one-third of Americans think genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Federally required labels will encourage them to persist in that delusion.
What's the harm in telling people a simple fact? "A government-mandated label operates as a de facto warning to consumers," writes Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan H. Adler in the fall issue of Regulation magazine. "A mandatory label for organic produce that says 'Produced with animal feces' could be literally true, but would also stigmatize the products at issue."
The government says tomato sauce may contain trace amounts of maggots. But it would not make sense to make companies publicize that ingredient, because the disclosure would raise false fears.
There are other ways in which labeling requirements can be harmful. Starting next year, the Food and Drug Administration will require chain restaurants to publish the calorie count of each beer on their menus.
But there's scant evidence this sort of information makes much difference. Julie Downs, a scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, says that "putting calorie labels on menus really has little or no effect on people's ordering behaviors at all."
This rule, however, may have an unintended effect on ordering behaviors -- by taking some beers off the table. The tests needed to provide accurate information entail costs that are trivial to mass-market manufacturers, which can spread across huge volumes, but not to small breweries, which can't.
The expense is even greater, notes Berry College economist E. Frank Stephenson, for breweries "that rotate beers frequently, produce seasonal specialties or occasionally tweak their recipes." Not surprisingly, the big beer-makers are in favor of the rule. The Brewers Association, a trade group for smaller ones, is not so keen on it.
The added cost imposed by the new rule is not likely to yield commensurate benefits. Drinkers who prefer low-calorie beers already know what to order, while craft beer aficionados generally put a priority on flavor over everything else. The consumers who get the least benefit will bear the costs of the mandate, in higher prices or fewer options. (Full disclosure: My stepson works for a craft brewery.)
Beer and food are not the only realms where more data works to the detriment of consumers. Most states issue report cards for hospitals. This may sound like a foolproof way of protecting patients from incompetent providers. The truth is more complicated.
University of Chicago law professor Omri Ben-Shahar tells me that "healthier and wealthier people are disproportionately likely to use the report card." Hospitals that get high marks will attract more of these patients -- and they have an incentive to cater to them, because treating healthier patients leads to higher scores.
But the higher-rated hospitals don't have unlimited capacity. So less educated and sicker patients, who are less likely to pay attention to the report cards, will find them less accessible, diverting them to hospitals that get worse scores. "The most vulnerable patients, including a large, disproportionate share of African-American patients, are the ones most likely to suffer," Ben-Shahar says.
A lot of disclosures are merely useless, because they go unread -- like the "terms and conditions" for iTunes, which run to 6,700 words. But politicians and bureaucrats feel no compunction about generating more and more data that will go unheeded at best and prove harmful at worst.
Mae West said, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." If she had lived to read the iTunes user agreement, she might have changed her mind.
NAS also “confirms” that anthropogenic climate change science is settled, too.
To me the real problem is the hubris of scientists who claim to say genetic modification is safe when they don’t fully understand DNA and especially don’t understand life.
No frankenfood for me, thanks-I’ll just keep eating veggies grown by myself and neighbors-and meat from local chickens and other livestock-no GMOs or chemical pesticides, free range, grass fed etc...
No frankenfood for me, thanks-I’ll just keep eating veggies grown by myself and neighbors-and meat from local chickens and other livestock-no GMOs or chemical pesticides, free range, grass fed etc...
Oops-sorry for the double post...
Every single bite of food you eat has been genetically modified. Ever single one.
L
Of course it has-I was raised on a remote ranch-I’m aware of the selective breeding process with plants and animals and that it was done to improve yield, resistance to pests, etc-an ear of corn 7-8000 years ago was about the size of a baby carrot, and what was wheat looked like some ornamental clump of grass-but humans started saving/planting the seeds from any plants that had more/bigger seedheads-agricultural revolution of sorts-but that happened over 100’s, 1000’s of years and it didn’t come out of a test tube of chemicals with a Monsanto label on it. Humans manipulating the natural selection process without chemicals is certainly safer than with them...
There are no factory farm growers of anything-and no feed lots-around here, so I suppose this is as natural as it can get unless I decide to move to an even more remote place...
“Humans manipulating the natural selection process without chemicals is certainly safer than with them...”
Prove that assertion if you can.
L
I don’t see that as something to get all adversarial over-it would seem to make sense not to use an unnatural substance in the food supply of all things, when we don’t know the long term effects of chemical manipulation on food crops-and the info that is available on animals fed growth hormones, etc is looking a bit concerning. What people eat is a matter of free choice-as it should be-I don’t really care what you or any other people eat-or whether they want to consume chemically-infused food-eat all of it that you want. But my choice is food that is as natural as possible-I’ve been eating it since childhood, and it works for me.
Define “unnatural” if you please.
L
There is no commonly understood definition of “safe” beyond that something that doesn’t kill you instantly.
At this point the feeding frenzy is in DC—pay big enough bribes and you can genetically modify whatever you want.
Whether it is “safe”, whatever that means, or not, who knows?
Life is a giant roulette spin at this point.
(Off to eat some veggies from the garden :-) )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.