GMOs are as good as vaccines.

[OrwellwasRight]

198. You undo your own argument.

Really. It's quite ridiculous.

Do you think dolphin-safe tuna is demonstrably nutritionally different than non-dolphin-safe tuna? I don't. And yet, it's required to be labeled.
That information has been deemed to be relevant, and so it is required to be disclosed. Again, you raise this point as if it refutes anything that I've posted, when certainly it does not.

Um, "has been deemed to be relevant"? So who do you think deems things "relevant", God? Here is how a democratic republic (not a Monsanto-owned corporatocracy) works: citizens think of ideas -- transmit to elected officials -- if enough of them do do that it appears the elected officials need to be responsive, they pass a law. I can recommend a good introductory book on government if you'd like. So if citizens say it is relevant, then it is relevant. Monsanto doesn't get to overrule democracy.

So, why was the manner in which tuna was caught "deemed relevant"? Citizens wanted it that way. And that is the only way we will get GMO labeling, as well. Oh, and by the way, I did fully refute "anything" that you posted. I refuted the entire post I responded to, in which your argument was that GMOs are "demonstrably safe" and so should not be labeled. Your entire argument implied that was the only determinant of labeling. It's a demonstrably incorrect premise, and I demonstrated that it was incorrect. So try another argument next time.

And I said nothing about "China" or "baby food". I asked if a carrot from Canada is demonstrably less safe than a carrot from the US. And it isn't. Therefore, under your ridiculous criteria, it would not have to be labeled. Only things that are demonstrably unsafe would have to be labeled -- so we would lose information about Canadian vegetables, Vitamin C, and the like. Stop using stupid arguments, and I will stop refuting them so thoroughly.

You do know there were fights over labeling vitamins, and tuna, and the like that occurred previously, each time food companies didn't want to label calories, or sugars, or vitamins, right? They made largely the same as the argument you are making now. And they lost. And we have more information on labels now. And not a single company went out of business as a result. Methinks they did protest too much.

And yet, the labeling laws were passed, I guess at the behest of people who believe "crazy bullshit," which by the way is yet another ineffective argument technique. Please point to the sentences above in which I purport to believe "crazy bullshit". No, seriously, I'm keen to find out what makes you think that you are the sane one between the two of us, or does impugning another person's state of mind really work out well for you here on DU? 'Cause I kind of think it doesn't.

Oh, and by the way, these same companies are currently fighting the country of origin labeling laws you so vigorously defend above. On what grounds? That it has no effect on food safety. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before.? The problem is, no one wants labels because of food safety. They want labels so that they know what they are buying, which companies they are patronizing, and can make choices about what kinds of food production they want to support. They want the perfect information promised for perfectly functioning markets. I'm sorry such concepts as consumers voting with their feet are beyond you. I can also recommend a good economics textbook if you'd like.

And, and please follow through on your "threat" to refrain from responding to me further. Calling someone's posts "vapid" is sort of the first refuge of someone losing an argument. But I guess that is what happens when someone deconstructs your lame argument, and you have to pretend that wasn't what you were arguing at all.