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.
The new GMO potato was not automatically picked up by the fast food companies because of exactly these concerns. McDonalds sales are not good and a similar boycott would really bring their franchisees in trouble.
This is exactly why I say that the term "GMO" has become so demonized that it makes a mandatory GMO label law completely impossible. It could never pass Constitutional review when it is now guaranteed to reduce sales for any product bearing it.
McDonald's not buying the new "Innate" potato from Simplot is completely about PR, not about health. This new GMO crop promises to make french fries healthier, by reducing the compounds which turn into the carcinogenic compound known as acrylamide, which appears when potatoes are fried at high temperatures.
Let me repeat that to be clear... science has long known, and has informed the public, that french fries contain small amounts of a carcinogen called acrylamide which increases the risk of contracting cancer when eaten regularly. Americans effectively vote to take that chance every time they order fries, which they do millions of times a day. This new potato reduces that risk, by reducing the inherent components of all potatoes which combine at high temperatures to form carcinogens. But McDonald's is afraid of the mindless objections from the activists, so they've declined to use them.
And this is why I think it's time to shine the spotlight back on the anti-science, anti-GMO activists who mindlessly object to any and all GMO cultivation, despite the absence of proof of their claims, and with an abundance of research showing they are mistaken. It's the newest form of McCarthyism, in which an accusation assumes guilt on the part of the accused. The consensus of the scientific community is that GMO foods are safe, yet the witch hunt is on, and food producers don't want to get sucked into the public controversy.
Digging in to the current propaganda against GMOs, I ran into a new trend among purveyors, to simply assume that everyone already believes the unproven assertion that GMOs are unhealthy, then to talk about what they are doing to remove/reduce them. This is the tack Whole Foods has taken, explaining their five-year pledge to get all food they sell labelled... it turns out to be incredibly complicated task just to get voluntary labelling on everything that 25,000 vendors sell them... yet nowhere do they explain why they are doing it... just as they don't explain why their food is so much more expensive than that at conventional supermarkets.
[quote] So, if McDonalds says no (for now), Starbucks will have to do the same and show support for its customers[quote]
Rather, I'd say they will likely have to cave to anti-science activists' extortion demands. "Do what we say or we'll hurt your business." Forget about having an intelligent discussion which airs the facts and allows consumers to make their own free choices. The anti-science crowd has turned to social media pressure to advance their goals and press their elitist agenda. The net effect is that the general public says they want GMOs removed from the food supply, or at least labelled as such, but then most of them really cannot give a cogent answer to the question "Why?"
"McCarthyism"? Nope, McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."
The argument that folks Protest without Info is not the same as Restricting criticism or protest, one could say it is just the opposite.
Anyhow, do carry on, love the tirades and the cute Limbaugh-like (low-information voters) attempts- "anti-science activists".
Gee and here i thought i was the only one who hijacks threads, if you listen to some people? Interesting when one group does it no real stink, when others do its a crime.
for some reason when I read this a box cutter comes to mind........ Hmmmm
"McCarthyism"? Nope, McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.
Obviously I mean that in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one. And I used that term deliberately because I see the same dynamics coming into play here... the accusations against GMOs are being lobbied in the court of public opinion without regard for evidence or proof. The mere act of making an accusation now carries with it the power to destroy. If a company as big and powerful as McDonalds is unwilling to buck that public dynamic in order to offer a superior product, a healthier product, in the complete absence of credible information that the opposition to the Innate potato is valid... sorry, but in my view that's just as much an irrational witch hunt as McCarthyism was.
Quote:
Anyhow, do carry on, love the tirades and the cute Limbaugh-like (low-information voters) attempts- "anti-science activists".
You've got that exactly backwards. I'm calmly and consistently posting evidence supporting my points, as well as links for reference and additional information. Anti-GMO advocates have no such evidence, which is why the tirades here have consistently involved emotion and personal attacks on me. And for the record, I despise Rush Limbaugh, who has no regard for the truth or facts or the principles of well reasoned and civil debate of the issues.
Stop trying to make me the subject here, and just stick to the topic.
Just on issues of what is truth or not, please try to remember that just because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Does a falling tree in the forest make noise even if we are not there?
Great point there, it could be that some folks are concerned that not all things are well researched before being sold in the USA. The standards in Europe, etc seem to be stricter than here and it makes some wonder why Americans have become guinea pigs in many areas.
Maybe we could use a 'Ralph Nader for food' in America, the FDA is not highly trusted for whatever reason(s).
I refer to Nader in the context of his work concerning auto safety.
As far as some of the analogy attempts in this thread...... well.........huh
OpenD, you are making yourself the subject, don't you notice? Going along your line of arguing is like talking to a wall.
Why creating a product with multimillion dollar research behind it when the market research shows that there's no acceptance in the market? Why would the Idaho Potato Board tarnish their world renowned stellar reputation with controversial GMO potatoes? You can't force acceptance by calling people uneducated, give them politically derogatory titles, and claim them being anti-science.
"Do what we say or we'll hurt your business." is the most logical answer to "Shut up and eat it!" McDonalds is smart enough to foresee this, but the investors and scientists aren't.
OpenD, you are making yourself the subject, don't you notice?
Not at all. For example, in this previous post I clearly demonstrated how attacking me had replaced reasonable, polite debate in this thread, but I haven't seen any change whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
Every place where I've highlighted the word "you" above is a personal comment directed at me. Tsk tsk tsk.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraBenNemsi
OpenD, you call yourself an independent freethinker?
You ignore basic marketing principles. You ignore that the laws in this country are ever changing; that 'We the people...establish justice". You do not believe in polls taken by various institutes over two decades would bear any meaning. You believe that $70K beating $8 mil corporate money on a ballot vote in Maui would amount to a conspiracy orchestrated on the mainland with sinister motives. You ignore that the boom in organic labeled products would not be cause for worry to food giants.
Really. Are you actually reading your stuff before hitting the post button? You support the short sighted GMO industry's attitude of 'Shut Up & Eat It!' with an even bigger 'Haven't I made that clear!' What's next? 'You are all anti science idiots!' Hmmm, I think you stated that already somewhere.
And to correct the false implication at the end, I have never said "You are all anti science idiots!" It's not my style at all.
.
Going along your line of arguing is like talking to a wall.
That's another meaningless personal insult. I am open-minded. highly intelligent, and a voracious reader, so I change my mind on things all the time as new information becomes available which is credible, well-researched, and well-regarded by relevant peers. And I'm committed to truth and accuracy in everything I write, even when it means going back on something I had written earlier. But when I am presented with pseudoscience, or sweeping assertions without credible proof of the claims made, or illogical arguments like the ad hominems which have substituted for actual thinking in many of these comments, then yes... I am a wall against that kind of nonsense
Quote:
Why creating a product with multimillion dollar research behind it when the market research shows that there's no acceptance in the market? Why would the Idaho Potato Board tarnish their world renowned stellar reputation with controversial GMO potatoes?
I don't know, I had nothing to do with the project, but here's a little gratuitous speculation about possible reasons... Because when this project was started decades ago the general public hadn't yet been brainwashed by the anti-GMO activists to irrationally think something is wrong with all GMOs? Because GMOs are widely considered safe within the scientific community, and scientists expect truth to trump emotion and illogic? Because they thought the benefits of this improved potato would be obvious to the food industry and to consumers, and would surely overcome any public skepticism based on false claims about GMO technology?
Quote:
You can't force acceptance by calling people uneducated, give them politically derogatory titles, and claim them being anti-science.
They haven't. They're just trying to sell potatoes.
And in a free country I feel strongly there should be no organized attempt to suppress an innovative product like this with no known issues. There's no guarantee the french fries made from Innate potatoes would be successful with the public... Burger King's lower calorie "SatisFries" were a flop, but simply because people didn't like the taste as much as what they were used to, and they were more expensive. The same could happen with Innate fries, but shouldn't they be given that chance in the marketplace? I definitely think so.
Quote:
"Do what we say or we'll hurt your business." is the most logical answer to "Shut up and eat it!" McDonalds is smart enough to foresee this, but the investors and scientists aren't.
No, it's not logical at all, in part because "Shut up and eat it" isn't a real thing. It's just an anti-GMO strawman, created as another way of trying to convince the public to ignore the mountain of credible evidence that GMO food and other crops are safe.
Speaking of which, it could be that some folks feel 'insulted' by large corporations making decisions without taking note (nor paying attention) of how the public may feel about it. In America we are taught to question things and how we Feel, regardless of science, should not be dismissed.
As I stated earlier, we may be Forced through economics to shop in a place with a biz model we do not respect but that just makes us less likely to let others get away with......stuff.
As I stated earlier, we may be Forced through economics to shop in a place with a biz model we do not respect but that just makes us less likely to let others get away with......stuff.
Yeah - let's not forget the public isn't exactly highly educated in sciences.
There are times in 2014 that I'm surprised people think "natural" food is better than a "modified" food. Why would it be? You can't live a long life going completely natural. Think about your day - from waking up and using toothpaste - deodorant - soap. Why wouldn't the public want the bad things modified out of food, it just seems to make no sense on the surface.
Yeah - let's not forget the public isn't exactly highly educated in sciences.
There are times in 2014 that I'm surprised people think "natural" food is better than a "modified" food. Why would it be? You can't live a long life going completely natural. Think about your day - from waking up and using toothpaste - deodorant - soap. Why wouldn't the public want the bad things modified out of food, it just seems to make no sense on the surface.
My guess would be due to the highly processed foods, we have found over the last few years, that contain insane amounts of added salt, fats and other additives put in for the Sole purpose of creating cravings, etc. Many people, from what I have read and heard, would like to eat and feed their children foods that are at least Identifiable as edible.
Mostly we no longer trust our gov't (the FDA) much less corporations like Starbucks, Monsanto, Dow, etc to ensure a safe and healthy food supply, that too, is just my guess.
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.
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.
