Last Week Tonight with John Oliver takes on food labeling and the lies they tell consumers

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Former Daily Show correspondent John Oliver launched his new show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" on HBO last night. In this segment, he covers a recent Supreme Court case involving one of the plaintiffs citing the 1st amendment as protection for their false advertising, and other insane claims made for products. Other segments featured the United States media outlets largely ignoring one of the largest elections the world has seen thus far (in India); and an interview with former NSA director Keith Alexander. The entire program is viewable on Youtube.

Video here.

Comments

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?

And accurate labelling identifying origins, grape variety, vintage, and wine-maker informs a buyer's market in at least one area I'm aware of.

Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?

The difference between your position and mine is just one of timing: I'm anticipating the market in the light of the popular desire to have such information, and allowing those stupid to their own advantage to have a level playing field with the enlightened folk who labelled their food in the light of consumer demand. It's almost like a democracy, but one where money buys influence.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

All the GMO's passed thus far appear to be safe. We've done this before. Shall I quote Russell on the problem of induction to you?

I think you did last time this came up. Let's label if and when there's a reason to, not just because.

Everything sold for consumption should be labelled with the information the consumer wants, or the consumer should be able to reject it and buy an alternative that does label it's contents properly. Surely that is the position you must defend, isn't it?

Okay, so where does that line sit? I don't love labeling laws at all, but I can at least see the point in labeling relevant information. What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

What is the relevance of whether a genetic modification exists in the food being sold specifically? "People should know" implies that there's something about that food they should know about and be wary of.

And so they're just better off not knowing. See? Paternalistic.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

I think that if people want to know that a product contains GMOs, they have the right to know. Whether you or I think their reason for wanting to know is silly doesn't change that, imo.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The issue is that it's really irrelevant. What if I want to know the square footage of the plant it's produced in, or the age of the butcher cutting my meat. Should that be on there, too? Where do we stop?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The slippery slope is already being invoked with the labeling.

More to the point, it's not an "extreme hypothetical," as the basis for labeling GMOs is that "the consumer has a right to know" information that is irrelevant to its experience.

A good argument from you would be to explain why GMO labeling is necessary information, thus explaining why introducing other hypothetical labeling information that a "consumer has the right to know" would be unnecessary. It's telling that you instead chose this direction, distracting from the topic in order to advance some false point.

Sorry to ruin your party, though.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The slippery slope is already being invoked with the labeling.




as the basis for labeling GMOs is that "the consumer has a right to know" information that is irrelevant to its experience.

Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested. And lots of stomping those Libertarian feet.


It's telling that you instead chose this direction, distracting from the topic in order to advance some false point.

So sorry to ruin your party (not really *wink*).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And yet you still have no answers. Telling.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah it tells me your begging the quesitons, and pointing out your logical fallacies is so much fun!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's what we're waiting for from you, yes.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's nice!

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

He doesn't even believe that corporations should have to provide a list of their ingredients, notwithstanding GMO elements. There's not much of a debate to be had here.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Very true, and I'm not into debating with robots anyway.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should state outright what you think telemann's response "tells" you, rather than pretend that you're not in fact directly insulting him by speaking only circumspectly.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested.

Yes - this seems roughly where, in Jeff's thinking, we've reached the root level. There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident.

It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head. What's "necessary" on a box of aspirin, say? Doesn't the notion of necessity contemplate some range of intended uses? So don't we have to make some judgment about the relation of a product to its use, as well as its user?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident,,,, It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head.

Exactly, and I want 35.00 an hour for my tutoring fees ;) But I appreciate your explanations though, since you are a real expert
#yay #enpowerment

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Oh, god - if I could bill him my hourly rate... it would probably bankrupt him.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

A good argument from you would be to explain why GMO labeling is necessary information, thus explaining why introducing other hypothetical labeling information that a "consumer has the right to know" would be unnecessary.

And here's where we can tip the slippery slope right back in your direction. Because what is necessary information, on a product label? Is it the country of origin? Is it the precise ordering of ingredients? Is it the nutrient information? Is there any reason we "need" to know how a new garment of clothing should be laundered? And why is "necessary information" a relevant criterion, anyway?

It would seem to me that the standard to apply here is found by asking: what kinds of information do people want to know, when they are purchasing a product? What kinds of information are relevant to their estimation of value and the assessment and comparison of prices? All that "labeling" needs to accomplish, I think, is to draw out the information that there's a market demand for. When we do that, we accomplish two things: we reduce the transaction costs for making purchases, and we ensure a more efficient matching of supply to demand. If I value a tomato with only tomato genes in it more highly than I value a tomato with pig genes, then it makes sense for labeling to enable me to avoid over-paying for things I don't want, regardless of whether my reasons behind the preference make any sense.