Brandon Ferdig submitted an opinion piece to the Star Tribune about science and political belief, writing that both conservatives and liberals are selective about the science they accept and reject. See "How Deep Have You Dug in Your Heels?", Star Tribune, 2012-10-16.
One of the items he wrote that liberals don't accept is "The science behind the safety of genetically modified foods."
I wrote a letter that was published today in response: "Food and Science, GMO opposition can be quite reasonable" (The Strib's title).
See also "Corporations hate free markets" and "GMO producers don't want free markets".
Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets
The Coffee Party on Facebook had a link to a CNN interview of Christine O'Donnell by Soledad O'Brien. O'Donnell claims the Obama has made Marxist remarks. O'Brien did call her on using the term Marxist but didn't really follow through. Many respondents to the Coffee Party page were disappointed that O'Brien didn't press for specifics.
One commenter mentioned that the Wealth of Nations wasn't published when the Declaration of Indendence was written, and so the signers couldn't include Adam Smith's thoughts.
I added the following to the comments:
Words! Words! As Humpty Dumpty said in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass": 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Worse than the misuse of the words "Marxism" and "Socialism" is the misuse of the word "Free Market".
The classical definition of a free market is:
1. Many buyers and sellers
2. Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market at any time.
3. Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a satisfactory transaction.
4. All the costs are covered in the transaction, that is, no externalities.
Interestingly, it is "free marketers" who don't want true free markets.
We have more and more consolidations into larger and larger corporations.
Are you free to leave the health care market when your child is sick?
GMO producers and others don't want buyers to know what's in their products.
Who is covering the costs of pollution and nuclear waste?
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was first published in 1776. Maybe the signers of the Declaration of Independence hadn't received copies yet, but I'm sure that many of the signers of the Constitution had read it by 1787.
Those who love to quote the "invisible hand" should read the other 500+ pages, including "When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes
otherwise when in favour of the masters."
One commenter mentioned that the Wealth of Nations wasn't published when the Declaration of Indendence was written, and so the signers couldn't include Adam Smith's thoughts.
I added the following to the comments:
Words! Words! As Humpty Dumpty said in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass": 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Worse than the misuse of the words "Marxism" and "Socialism" is the misuse of the word "Free Market".
The classical definition of a free market is:
1. Many buyers and sellers
2. Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market at any time.
3. Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a satisfactory transaction.
4. All the costs are covered in the transaction, that is, no externalities.
Interestingly, it is "free marketers" who don't want true free markets.
We have more and more consolidations into larger and larger corporations.
Are you free to leave the health care market when your child is sick?
GMO producers and others don't want buyers to know what's in their products.
Who is covering the costs of pollution and nuclear waste?
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was first published in 1776. Maybe the signers of the Declaration of Independence hadn't received copies yet, but I'm sure that many of the signers of the Constitution had read it by 1787.
Those who love to quote the "invisible hand" should read the other 500+ pages, including "When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes
otherwise when in favour of the masters."
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
GMO producers don't want free markets
Susan K. Finston has written an op-ed piece on GMO products and labeling in many places, including the Fresno Bee, "FDA shouldn't order costly GMO labels". I read it in the Duluth News Tribune was part of one the DNT's Pro and Con pairings. See https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=36&article_id=236256. It was published in many newspapers across the country on 2012-07-07. The DNT published only two letters on her article, both in opposition. One was mine that was titled by the editor as "Lack of information spells doom for free markets – and possibly people". See https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=36&article_id=237319. The text is :
Free markets are disappearing, and it is free-market proponents who are taking them away.
The classic definition of a free market is:
Many buyers and many sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make an advantageous transaction.
All costs are covered in the transaction; that is, there are no externalities.
In this letter I want to cover a third point: all the information needed. This was ignored by Susan K. Finston in her Pro/Con commentary, “FDA shouldn’t order costly GMO labels just to satisfy scientific illiterates,” which was published in the News Tribune on July 7.
The top story on an online search for “GMO deaths” is about sudden cattle deaths at a small ranch in Texas. However, it was hybrid grass that produced cyanide after a couple of drought years that caused the deaths. If a hybrid grass can do this, how do we know that a GMO grass won’t do the same?
As to be expected, most of the hits led to “sensationalist” sites, those with a cause; they only repeated stories from elsewhere. I added, “Union of Concerned Scientists” to my search and found a much more credible report: “Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops — Recent Experiences,” by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists website.
“No major human health problems have emerged in connection with genetically modified food products,” Mellon and Rissler reported. But a company put a Brazil nut gene into soybeans to increase the latter’s nutritional quality. Experiments showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the altered soybeans.
Some allergic reactions are fatal. Would you rather eat foods you know don’t give you a reaction? Or would you like being surprised by a fatal ingredient? Labeling is important!
Free markets are disappearing, and it is free-market proponents who are taking them away.
The classic definition of a free market is:
Many buyers and many sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make an advantageous transaction.
All costs are covered in the transaction; that is, there are no externalities.
In this letter I want to cover a third point: all the information needed. This was ignored by Susan K. Finston in her Pro/Con commentary, “FDA shouldn’t order costly GMO labels just to satisfy scientific illiterates,” which was published in the News Tribune on July 7.
The top story on an online search for “GMO deaths” is about sudden cattle deaths at a small ranch in Texas. However, it was hybrid grass that produced cyanide after a couple of drought years that caused the deaths. If a hybrid grass can do this, how do we know that a GMO grass won’t do the same?
As to be expected, most of the hits led to “sensationalist” sites, those with a cause; they only repeated stories from elsewhere. I added, “Union of Concerned Scientists” to my search and found a much more credible report: “Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops — Recent Experiences,” by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists website.
“No major human health problems have emerged in connection with genetically modified food products,” Mellon and Rissler reported. But a company put a Brazil nut gene into soybeans to increase the latter’s nutritional quality. Experiments showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the altered soybeans.
Some allergic reactions are fatal. Would you rather eat foods you know don’t give you a reaction? Or would you like being surprised by a fatal ingredient? Labeling is important!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)