Wasn't disputing that.
My post was about the business side of the situation
Once one company gets the benefits of cheaper manufacturing, all of its rivals will be tempted, and soon forced to join them in order to stay competitive.
So naturaly, when the oportunity arrised, they all took it, not wanting to wait and lose the head start.
It was never unprofitable to manufacture in the US. It was marginally more profitable to manufacture in China, because they have priced their air, water, soil indeed bodies at 0.
Only when viewed in isolation.
Everything changes when your competitiion moves to the marginally more profitable manufacturing in China, and undercuts you.
It's not a matter concerning science. It's a matter concerning money, industry, the marketplace.
Yes I agree. Labeling GMO's is connected to money, industry and the marketplace, not with science.
I have no problem with the modification of genomes. Science is gonna do what they're gonna do.
Research is expencive. If there is no potential market, there will be no money for research.
If labeling is required a lot of the big producers will choose not to use GMO's, just because they don't want to alienate the majority of the consumers. It will be the same like politicians in the USA, allways proclaiming they are devout christians. Exactly the same reasons. They don't want to be called imoral satanists by the majority of the voters/consumers.
Just disclose what's in the package in an honest and open way. It is not science to hide information from people. If you're afraid it's going to be too scary for consumers, then it's a matter for the marketing department, not for science.
Claiming this discussion is about "science" is a little bit dishonest, in fact.
What is in the package is disclosed. You are asking for labeling wheather the columns of the factory were built using steel beams or reinforced concrete
If after more than 20 years of research, the best scientists have not found that products created in factories built with steel beams, are not in any way more dangerous for the consumers, than there is no need to separate the products on the shelves, or inform the consumers about it.
By the way, you are free to boast that your factory is built the old-fashioned way.
Claiming the initiative for labeling of GMO's is about "the safety of the consumers" is a little bit dishonest, in fact.
Every single poll taken has over 90% of consumers wanting GMOs to be labeled, and in every single poll consumers want GMOs to be required by law to be labeled.
90% of consumers also want labeling of foods that contain DNA and banning of "Dihydrogen monoxide".
There is no place for democracy in matters concerning science. What is the point in voting for the result of 2+2.
If there was solid proof that GMO's are inherently more dangerous in some way, I would support you in the initiative to label them.
I support stricter protocols regarding mandatory herbicide and pesticide rotation. I support laws, that would not allow for the creation of a monoculture.
Those things are based on science, and are aplicable to all types of farming. They would probably hurt GM seeds manufacturers more, but we should not think about those things when considering laws for the protection of the environment or the consumers.
If your analogy to learning about how your food was grown is somebody's race, you are too far gone to participate in this discussion.
That analogy is more corect than your sock analogy. BTW, why did you bring socks to the discussion?
Mandatory labeling should inform the customer about something usefull. To warn about doses, potential danger, etc.
The GMO label, doesn't do any of that. GMO products are compositionaly equivalent to conventional ones.
Mandatory labeling of GMO's is not realy different to what happened during the second world war, when Jews were forced to wear a yellow hand band.
Today, I was labeled a shill, was convicted of being a paid lobist for Monsanto, just because I support genetic engineering.
I'm bringing race to the discussion, in an atempt to show you how irrational fears can very quickly turn into hate.
And again. I'm not acusing you of being a racist. I am acusing you for supporting initiatives solely based on chemophobia.
"GMO sockpupets". Realy? And then you speak about ad hominem...
There is nothing wrong in pointing out flawed resoning. I didn't call you a racist. But I hope my example showed you the difference between an important information, and an uninportant one, which can ease the discrimination.
Nobody is stoping you to label your products, "natural" or "magical"
And, I'm also more than a little offended by people who say that consumers don't have a right to know the provenance of the food they eat. As if you've become some new arbiter of what information consumers may be allowed to base their purchasing decisions on. If I don't want to buy green socks, I don't have to buy green socks, even though they are every bit as safe as the grey socks I prefer. Does that mean that sock consumers must now not be allowed to see the color of the fucking socks in the package, because after all, green socks are functionally the same as grey socks?
That is a bad analogy. Green socks are not functionally equivalent. Color is an important property.
On the other hand, the race of the people working in the factory producing those socks is not an information that consumers must know, regardles of what some people feel about it.
Racists may feel that by buying the socks, they sponsor the demise of their blood line. Should we respect thair fears?
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
