Labeling GMOs

I just read a poster which said:

"The law requires labels telling us what's in our mattresses. 

How can anyone object to telling us what's in our food?"

I have discussed food labeling with those who strongly believe in the harmlessness of GMO foods, and who object to any sort of labeling requirement.

The reasoning against labeling goes thusly:

1. GMOs are harmless.
2. People are easily swayed by fearmongers. 
3. Labeling will cause people to discriminate against GMO foods. 
4. GMO foods have certain advantages for farmers and distributors.
   - higher yield (greater pesticide effectiveness)
   - easier mechanization of farming
   - less spoilage of food during transport and storage
5. If GMO foods don't sell, those advantages will not be realized. And Monsanto will not recoup their research money (a lot of which came from the federal government.)

I find this reasoning specious.

I will not get into whether GMOs are safe or not. That is where most discussions founder, as one side presents studies that support their argument, which are then not accepted by the other. To me, that is not really relevant. The question is not one of safety, but of labeling. Do we have the right to know what is in our food?

As far as I can tell, the argument against labeling comes down to this: people are too stupid to assess the risks and benefits, and make up their own minds whether to buy GMO. The crazies will win.  Everywhere else, we say, provide information and let the free market decide. Not here.

If the problem is truly that people are too easily swayed by people fearful of technology, and ignorant of science, then mount an advertising campaign to educate people. Make your case. Convince people. If GMOs are really that much more efficient, then their use should result in lower food prices - that's a pretty big incentive, that will overcome a lot of negative PR. If GMOs allow farming practices that help the environment, tell people. Make GMO labeling an advertising plus. That is what "Organic" has done. A lot of fruits and veggies are sold with blemishes that are overlooked because the produce is "organic".

The mere fact that so many people are uneasy about GMOs is a reason to label. If their fears are groundless, then those fears they will eventually be allayed. Hiding GMO status, on the other hand, will simply, inevitably, cause a future scandal. Somebody will have a problem, it will be "discovered" that GMOs were involved, and the story will then be one of conspiracy and coverup. A little reluctance to adopt now is much better than what will happen in the future if the knowledge of GMO status is suppressed.

Another reason to label is that there will always be some people who have a sensitivity to an ingredient. We label peanuts, gluten, milk products; all sorts of things because some people - not most - need to know. We now require country of origin labeling on fruits and veggies. We even label religious status (kosher, pareve) for some foods.

Are there any reasons NOT to label? Public aversion is often cited, but as I said, the response to that is to provide more information, not to withhold it. Respect people's ability to make up their own minds. It may take awhile, but what's the hurry?

Some people I have discussed this with have likened objections to GMOs to objections to vaccination. In both cases, they say, people ignore the actual science. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful, they say, and no evidence that vaccination causes autism or any of the other things detractors claim. That may be so. But I see a huge distinction between the two.

Vaccinations work on the herd level. A certain percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated, or else you have a reservoir in which the pathogen can hide. A few unvaccinated people will not have a significant effect, and there will always be a few who have impaired immune systems and cannot be vaccinated. But if too many people refuse to be vaccinated, the entire group can be endangered. Refusal to vaccinate has consequences for public health, and can literally kill nearby kids who are immune-compromised. There is a compelling public interest in vaccination.

Is there a similar compelling pubic interest in the acceptance of GMO foods? I don't think so. If people avoid GMO foods, I can think of no consequences for public health. The major consequences would be in the bottom line of companies like Monsanto, and of some in the food industry.

Do the finances of these companies constitute a public-health concern that would justify withholding information, to essentially fool customers into ingesting a particular product? No. If there are any ecological or public health ramifications that might constitute a compelling reason for widespread GMO ingestion, over the objection of customers, I'd like to hear them.

Until then, I remain adamantly in favor of GMO labeling.

Easter lamb or Easter ham?

Here's a question for you: lamb or ham?

Just as there are strong opinions as to whether to place toilet paper on the spindle so it unrolls from the top and over the roll, or from the bottom and under the roll, there are strong opinions as to whether you should eat lamb or ham on Easter.

I don't really remember if we had a family tradition on this, but I always thought it was amusing that people either eat the Lamb of God, or eat ham to prove to everyone that they're not Jewish.

Lamb makes sense to me. Easter is a Christian extension of the Jewish Passover. The Last Supper, after all, was a Passover seder. The reason Jesus was taken down from the cross on the same day he was crucified is that it was Friday evening, the start of the Jewish Sabbath. I'm not quite sure why the Sabbath was a factor, since Jesus was accused as a blasphemer under Jewish law, and crucified in accordance with Roman law. Nevertheless.

The name "Passover" refers to the Egyptian Captivity. To make the Pharaoh release the Israelites, God visited them with a series of ten plagues, the last and worst of which was the death of the firstborn. To let the Angel of Death know they were the good guys, the Israelites marked their doors with the blood of a lamb, which caused the Angel to "pass over" that house without killing anyone. The lamb itself was roasted and eaten.

Having lamb at Easter honors this tradition and this history. Yes, there is a slightly creepy aspect, which is the part that amused me as a kid. Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb of God". Since I did not grow up in a tradition that practiced Communion ("this is my body and this is my blood"), the implied cannibalism always seemed outrageous. However, partaking of lamb on Easter elevates the meal to a symbolic Communion, an acceptance of the sacrifice. The Paschal lamb was sacrificed so that the Angel of Death would pass by; Jesus sacrificed himself as a Paschal Lamb to ensure that Spiritual Death would pass by.

So what about ham? I really can't find any symbolism for this as a traditional Easter dish.

Easter, of course, is also the time of several pagan traditions celebrating the rebirth of life in the spring. The name "Easter" itself comes from the name of the Anglo-Saxon Goddess, Oestre, a goddess of fertility whose name also survives in female reproduction-related words, such as estrus and estrogen. The policy of the early Church in Great Britain was to absorb previous religions, and so the symbols of Oestre were adopted and converted to Christian symbols. Eggs are obvious symbols of fecundity; they were adapted to symbolize the emergence of new spiritual life from the empty tomb.

Rabbits are eaten in some areas of Europe, probably as a symbol of fecundity, but they are rarely eaten in the US, and with the anthropomorphizing of the Easter Bunny, would not be acceptable to children.

The nearest I have come to a justification for having ham comes from the Encyclopedia of Religion, which states that in pre-Christian Europe, pigs were considered lucky. Perhaps, but that doesn't really explain why one eats ham at Easter. More likely might be that pigs were fed all winter, and during lent; now it's spring, and time to slaughter the pigs and reclaim the barn space for the newly born lambs.

Or, as I suggested near the beginning, eating ham simply showed everyone that you were not Jewish.

How [not] to change a law

We are a country of laws. That is supposed to be our strength, the backbone of our democracy.
Sometimes we pass a bad law. But even then, we have a system that allows us to go back and change those laws. We have checks and balances that eventually work.

We muddle through.

Three years ago, we passed a law called the Affordable Care Act. It passed Congress (the Legislative Branch, both the House and the Senate), it was signed into law by the President (the Executive Branch). Some who were very upset that it passed asked the Supreme Court to examine whether it met constitutional muster. It did; it gained the approval of the Judicial Branch. And so it is the law of the land. It passed all branches of Government.

But some were still very upset that it passed. There was an election, and many made their opposition to this law a central part of their campaign. And enough were elected to form a majority in the House of Representatives.

Now, the legal way to change a law is to amend or revoke that law, by garnering enough votes in the House and Senate; if necessary, enough to overcome a veto by the Executive Branch. In 3 years, and despite one election, those who oppose this law have been unable to do this.

And so the Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land. By popular vote, by majority acclaim. Those who still oppose it are welcome to continue to campaign and lobby and advertise to try to change that law. But that is not what they chose to do.

Instead of going through legal procedures, they have chosen to refuse to do their jobs. They have refused to pass a budget that does not defund or delay Obamacare. Note that defunding or delaying implementation of something that passed into law three years ago is NOT one of the legal ways to change a law. And so the government is shut down.

Some people are cursing both parties, saying they are refusing to negotiate. But ONCE A LAW HAS PASSED, YOU DO NOT NEGOTIATE IT.  Negotiation is what you do while forming the law.

Imagine you are driving down the highway. The speed limit is 60 but you can easily go 80. You do, and are stopped for speeding. Do you say to the cop. "That law is wrong; the speed limit here should be 80. If you don't agree with me or at least negotiate with me on this I will shut down the police department".

Well, if you were a dictator you might. But in a society based on the rule of law, you don't. You don't wait for the cop to say "OK, let's set the speed limit at 75". In fact, if the cop DID negotiate, he would be abrogating his responsibility to enforce the law. No. It would be wrong to negotiate in that manner. The law is the law; if you want to amend it, do it though proper channels.

The Senate is entirely correct in refusing to negotiate what is already passed into law. The Republicans in the House are trying to subvert the legal legislative process, to use extortion to get what they have been unable to get by legitimate means.

Pass the budget.  If "Obamacare" is as terrible as the Republicans believe (despite the fact that most of it was originally proposed by Republicans), then they will have no problem repealing it.  Legally.

PS - I understand that there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean (without amendments) budget, but Speaker Boehner will not let that bill come to the floor. If administrative rules allow one person to essentially close down the government, there should be a mechanism to throw out those rules. And if this is true, we should see if it is possible to impeach Boehner, for dereliction of duty and for subversion of the legislative process.