Darwin's day - in the War on Science

[Xmara]

I want to believe that, but then I look at things like measles outbreaks in America and the absolute refusal of society to move beyond coal and oil and the sheer prevalence of non-GMO, "organic" foods in every grocery store, even Walmart, and I start to wonder are they a minority? Maybe it's different in other places, like Europe and Canada where they are actually developed, first world nations, but here in America, it seems like science and rationality lose more and more ground with each passing year.

Because it's not just one segment of the population; we're getting it from both sides. The conservatives are out there denying evolution and climatology while the liberals are denying genetic modification and vaccination. And the moderates are too apathetic to speak out against either. America is fucked, and I don't know if it can be fixed.

Having non-GMO and organic products in the store doesn't mean the majority has a strong preference for them. It only proves that some people (regardless of how many) have some preference (regardless of how strong). Labeling something "non-GMO" does not mean that it will ONLY sell to people with conspiracy theories about GMOs. I buy non-GMO granola bars because there is a brand that I happen to like how they taste. I don't check every product I buy to make sure it is non-GMO. But the fact that I bought non-GMO granola bars is still giving the store a motivation to keep stocking them.

Crusading for GMOs is not any better than crusading against them. There's no reason why everything needs to be GMO, and there's no real harm done by GMO labeling. It's just a label that people are free to ignore. It's not any more harmful than labeling things "low fat" -- which tends to be useless as nutritional advice because it doesn't tell you anything about the sugar content.

I’ve bought stuff with the non-GMO label before, though not because it was non-GMO, but because it was something I happened to like.

But I still cringe when I see products labeled “chemical free.”

[Xmara]

Rational Wiki is about as trustworthy a source as conservapedia.

It’s at least funnier than Conservapedia

You make a good point. I don’t think the founder of Conservapedia has a sense of humor, nor do the site’s editors.

[Aclion]

Having non-GMO and organic products in the store doesn't mean the majority has a strong preference for them. It only proves that some people (regardless of how many) have some preference (regardless of how strong). Labeling something "non-GMO" does not mean that it will ONLY sell to people with conspiracy theories about GMOs. I buy non-GMO granola bars because there is a brand that I happen to like how they taste. I don't check every product I buy to make sure it is non-GMO. But the fact that I bought non-GMO granola bars is still giving the store a motivation to keep stocking them.

Crusading for GMOs is not any better than crusading against them. There's no reason why everything needs to be GMO, and there's no real harm done by GMO labeling. It's just a label that people are free to ignore. It's not any more harmful than labeling things "low fat" -- which tends to be useless as nutritional advice because it doesn't tell you anything about the sugar content.

I’ve bought stuff with the non-GMO label before, though not because it was non-GMO, but because it was something I happened to like.

But I still cringe when I see products labeled “chemical free.”

That should be prosecuted as false advertising.

[Esternial]

Crusading for GMOs is not any better than crusading against them.

That's like saying crusading for vaccines is not any better than crusading against them...to some degree.

GMOs are not a fad, they're an attempt to make more resource-efficient crops, because we are running out of fresh water, and with every passing year it becomes more imperative that we further develop this technology and bring it onto the market.

I'm going to avoid getting into a rant, because I always do that when it comes to GMOs, but the fact that nobody has every bothered to label crops created by atomic gardening (i.e. exposing crops to a radioactive source). To the law, nuking your crop's DNA is considered safer than applying a targeted change.