tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post2680246803540819189..comments2024-03-24T11:01:27.668-04:00Comments on Resource Insights: Why the fight for GMO labeling is (possibly) overKurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-24705774551087966022016-04-18T20:57:15.853-04:002016-04-18T20:57:15.853-04:00Hotshot is right that those pushing transparency ...Hotshot is right that those pushing transparency believe that such transparency will drive GMOs from the marketplace. Generally, they make no secret of this. And, that's precisely what happened with the two examples he cites. The industry could not convince consumers that the benefits were worth the risks. The industry simply lost the public relations battle. In a free market economy with a free press, this is what happens sometimes. To insist that people must like something you are selling because you believe it has advantages is mere wishful thinking. And, the marketplace tests thinking like that everyday.<br /><br />Hotshot may believe that consumers made the wrong choice. But, fortunately, in a free society he is not allowed to make that choice for them. He may also believe that those opposing genetically engineered foods are anti-science. But this would also mean that he must believe that the FDA scientists who recommended that GM foods be tested as if they were new drugs are also anti-science. If you don't like someone else's scientific findings, it's easy to call them anti-science. Science is always plagued with doubt and incomplete results. That's what the industry and its antagonists are arguing about.<br /><br />Despite the huge funding advantage that the industry has in this fight, it appears to be losing. I believe this has something to do with the dynamic I've written about, the power of the stubborn minority. And, it's why I think the industry can no longer win this fight because that stubborn minority is too large and it's growing.Kurt Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-77184248988187324922016-04-18T05:42:21.926-04:002016-04-18T05:42:21.926-04:00If the opposition was all about transparency, then...If the opposition was all about transparency, then why all the opposition to Arctic Apple and Innate potato, which would at least be identifiable by their brand name. These offer consumer advantages, but opposition was every bit as strong as that against GMOs in general. The goal of the anti-science activists is elimination of GM, and eventually conventional farming (by pesticide restrictions), in favor of their high margin organic products.Hotshothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10208253441589616132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-72075380428715723612016-04-18T00:07:17.860-04:002016-04-18T00:07:17.860-04:00As you can see, the district court already refused...As you can see, the district court already refused an injunction so the industry appealed. The Vermont law will almost certainly go into affect before the appeals court rules. My point, of course, is that no matter how the court rules, the GMO industry has now put itself into an impossible spot because of the position it took back in the 1990s. No differences implies no advantages. It's hard to backtrack on 20 years of that.Kurt Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-19614898931519904872016-04-17T23:54:45.978-04:002016-04-17T23:54:45.978-04:00IF it's over, why is Sorrell trying to shore u...IF it's over, why is Sorrell trying to shore up his case to devend the Vermont labeling law?<br /><br />https://t.co/GxzLfETi6sTheOldTechnicianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10049599512384090784noreply@blogger.com