Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-05-2014, 01:22 AM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,174,078 times
Reputation: 1478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Has the food costs gone up in the countries that do have GMO labeling? That is the easiest place to get your answer.

Regardless, it looks like it will probably be till Friday before we know for sure, and if it fails it will more than likely be back on the ballot in 2016 because it is important for people to know how their food is made. I personally like knowing what my food is made of.
It's a ridiculous argument. Food packaging is changed all the time, sometimes just for special events (like the Olympics or the World Cup or something like that) or the holidays. If food packaging was prohibitively expensive, Wheaties would have gone out of business a long time ago.

 
Old 11-05-2014, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So did you also vote in favor of 89 and 91 while also voting against 90?
Yes.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,982,639 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
Yes.
Well look at that, there are things we agree on.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 02:15 AM
 
25,040 posts, read 27,794,165 times
Reputation: 11784
If food labeling was so expensive as to say no to this, why does BigAg waste millions of dollars every time on such campaigns? VTHokie, can you admit that you are falling for Monsanto and Gang propaganda hook, line, and sinker? I also find it funny that the more libertarian minded people who hate Monsanto, also hate GMO labeling.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 02:35 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
If food labeling was so expensive as to say no to this, why does BigAg waste millions of dollars every time on such campaigns? VTHokie, can you admit that you are falling for Monsanto and Gang propaganda hook, line, and sinker? I also find it funny that the more libertarian minded people who hate Monsanto, also hate GMO labeling.
It's not propaganda, it's basic marketing and economic knowledge. If the entire country required GMO labeling, then you're right, it wouldn't cost anything because the cost of labeling would be much lower per unit. To apply this law to a state of just 3.9 million people will cause food prices to increase just so they can sell in Oregon.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 02:42 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,982,639 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
It's not propaganda, it's basic marketing and economic knowledge. If the entire country required GMO labeling, then you're right, it wouldn't cost anything because the cost of labeling would be much lower per unit. To apply this law to a state of just 3.9 million people will cause food prices to increase just so they can sell in Oregon.
Yet in another post you admit this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
You're right. There is no proof that it would increase food prices because to get proof you would have to pass the measure and then visit the future to see if prices increased or not. That's not possible, so I used the economics knowledge I have to make my decision.
You can't claim something will go up if there is no proof that prices will go up. Considering ALL of these companies fighting GMO labeling also sell products in countries that require labeling means they already do GMO labeling. So where are these food cost increases we are hearing about?

Again, I want to know what my food is made of and the more honest we make companies be, the better it is for the consumer.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 02:46 AM
 
25,040 posts, read 27,794,165 times
Reputation: 11784
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
It's not propaganda, it's basic marketing and economic knowledge. If the entire country required GMO labeling, then you're right, it wouldn't cost anything because the cost of labeling would be much lower per unit. To apply this law to a state of just 3.9 million people will cause food prices to increase just so they can sell in Oregon.
Or to have lower food costs, then do what car companies have done for a long time now, and just apply California emissions standards to ALL states, not build cars with emissions components that are California compliant, and then build another set of cars for the other 49 states. So why can't companies just make up package labeling, then, for all 50 states while at the same time complying with Oregon's laws? What is so difficult about doing that when car companies have been doing the same thing ever since California went above and beyond EPA emissions standards?
 
Old 11-05-2014, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Yet in another post you admit this.



You can't claim something will go up if there is no proof that prices will go up. Considering ALL of these companies fighting GMO labeling also sell products in countries that require labeling means they already do GMO labeling. So where are these food cost increases we are hearing about?

Again, I want to know what my food is made of and the more honest we make companies be, the better it is for the consumer.
I said that you can't provide PROOF either way. That doesn't mean you can't make an educated guess. Look, don't spend your time trying to convince me, you need to convince the working class blue collar Democrats why your hipster, trendy ballot measure is good for them.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,982,639 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
I said that you can't provide PROOF either way. That doesn't mean you can't make an educated guess. Look, don't spend your time trying to convince me, you need to convince the working class blue collar Democrats why your hipster, trendy ballot measure is good for them.
If you can't provide proof either way then you can't claim it will increase prices. That is the error I am trying to shof you with your posts.

Besides GMO labeling will pass here, if not this year, then it will be in 2016, but it will pass here.
 
Old 11-05-2014, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,858,962 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
If you can't provide proof either way then you can't claim it will increase prices. That is the error I am trying to shof you with your posts.

Besides GMO labeling will pass here, if not this year, then it will be in 2016, but it will pass here.
I doubt 2016 will be the year, maybe 2018. If you're going to do a ballot measure, you can't just keep pushing it in front year after year after year. You have to be sure that the thing is going to win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top