+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof (/showthread.php?tid=12983)
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Permie - 01-17-2014
quote:I agree that you have to be very careful in your land selection and agree that the risk from choosing very poorly would outweigh the risk from GMO currently on the market. Luckily, soil sampling isn't very difficult.
Originally posted by Midnight Rambler
quote:Well, there's your mistake right there. There's probably a much greater risk in eating corn grown on former sugarcane or pineapple lands due to all the horribly toxic pesticides that used to be sprayed on them and still persist in the soil, than from anything in the GMOs or the safer chemicals currently used.
Originally posted by Permie
I'm moving to Hawaii to get away from this stuff for the sake of my children. I want to be able to grow as much of my own food as possible because make no mistake, pesticides ARE poison.
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Permie - 01-17-2014
quote:Incidentally, I feel that supplements should be better regulated as well. Even vitamins and minerals. There are a lot of unscrupulous marketers out there.
Originally posted by Obie
This product wasn't required to be tested and health food stores sold it.
I wonder if Island Naturals sold this ?
Diet supplement linked to liver failure ordered off Hawaii shelves
48-year-old Sonnette Marras died Friday at the Queen's Medical Center after taking the supplement.
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Permie - 01-17-2014
quote:I always enjoy the, "Nature does it too!" argument.
Originally posted by OpenD
quote:
Originally posted by Permie
As I've mentioned, I am not anti GMO. I just want the proper research done on every single new variety just like every single new medication has to go through rigorous testing.
I defer to the wisdom of Dr. Gonsalvez, who developed UH SunUp, the original ring spot virus resistant papaya that saved the industry while working as a researcher at Cornell university. He said (paraphrased) all I did was flip a couple of genetic switches to allow the papaya to use its own immune system to inoculate itself against the virus. It was a papaya before, it's still a papaya.
And 20 years later it is still a papaya.
Now, stop and think of a several much bigger changes that have occurred in our food supply involving more substantial genetic alteration, although not man-made. The navel orange was a spontaneous change that happened to one specific tree in Riverside, California many years ago. Nobody knows what caused it, possibly a random gamma ray passing through a single seed and altering it, and thus changing major characteristics of the fruit. But did anyone regard it as dangerous? No, they regarded it as luscious, and stood in line to obtain it.
Same thing happened with the Hass avocado in Long Beach, California in the 1920s. Apparently a spontaneous sport found in his hobby orchard by a postal carrier named Hass, it has become the dominant variety in domestic production. Was anyone scared of it? Dis it need to be tested for three generations to determine if it was safe? No. People just found it to be delicious, and bought it, and ate it.
But when scientific researchers emulate the sport variation... but deliberately, instead of waiting around for some chance gamma ray to roll the genetic dice... they are pilloried. Sorry, wait... did I tell you about the Loganberry?
Irony of irony to me, the folks who are pushing the scary-scary agenda all venerate Big Herbal, which is essentially a mirror twin of Big Pharma, but on the rough side, without standards and regulation to assure safety and efficacy.
The SunUp was a papaya before. It's still a papaya. Why can't people just accept that? 20 years later, why can't people just accept that?
Yes, nature causes mutations of plants that provides us with new varieties. Nature, "Flips switches".
The SunUp papaya is a TRANSGENIC papaya. VASTLY different and most certainly not just, "Flipping a couple switches" that were turned off. Genetics from the virus were transferred to the papaya. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic
Now, I'm not opposed to it. In fact, I think it was great science. As long as the proper safety testing is done, I'm all for it. I will also say I'm much more comfortable with the papaya varieties that have been developed for disease resistance than I am with GMO that produce systemic pesticides.
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Guest - 01-17-2014
quote:
Originally posted by geochem
quote:
Originally posted by Oneself
To even argue, dillution, is missing the whole point.
Let me simplify, POISONS, are POISONOUS.
The rest of your arguement is invalid.
Your comments here and elsewhere portray your complete ignorance of chemistry and toxicology. EVERYTHING is POISONOUS at some exposure level: copper is poisonous - too much copper intake will kill you; deprive yourself of all copper in your diet and you will DIE - is it poisonous or is it an essential element? IT IS BOTH. All the whining about hydrogen sulfide - is it poisonous, yes at high concentrations; it is also produced inside your cells; without it, your body will die. How about oxygen - we all need oxygen - at too high a concentration, you will not survive more than a few minutes.
To bring the thread back to the original topic: Mr. Ruderman's business model, and the business model of his whole industry, is to instill paranoia in the public consciousness over their food and over non-organic food production - that is their marketing strategy. If they can cripple conventional food production, or make those costs so high, organic producers and vendors are more competitive in the market place. Mr. Ruderman and the rest of organic marketers wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness to protect themselves from any real scrutiny over their motives and the deceptiveness of their whole marketing strategy - the success of that strategy has now emboldened them to attack the conventional farming community that produces the majority of our food. It is self-serving and it is dishonest.
Oh, and the rest of your argument is invalid...
You, like every other person or scientist or data source, edit things to show in your favor. You should have qouted my whole woute.
"How harmful is it ? Well that is for the future to decide, but harmfull, it WILL BE in some way."
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Guest - 01-17-2014
This is all the proof i need -
https://www.facebook.com/iApparel/posts/10151781171775771:0
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Beachboy - 01-18-2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cibJ10m-Ro8
I think it's quite insane that people here would even consider eating GMO food!? If given the choice, the majority of us wouldn't either! THat is why the GMO community is fighting so hard to keep the labeling of the bottles. Look at countries where it is required. Overwhelmingly people avoid it if they know what food products are genetically modified. It also forces these companies who sell these products to re-think their marketing. In most cases the GMO products are dropped, and that's the major worry here in America for these GMO companies.
As for these local farmers who decided to go the GMO route. You made your bed, and now you got to sleep in it, but we don't have too!
-----------
Support the 'Jack Herer Initiative'NOW!!
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - VancouverIslander - 01-18-2014
quote:Feed corn vs sweet corn? Like PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute".
Originally posted by Oneself
This is all the proof i need -
https://www.facebook.com/iApparel/posts/10151781171775771:0
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - peteadams - 01-18-2014
quote:If that rises to level of proof for you, you are certainly more than credulous enough to believe the anti-GMO myths.
Originally posted by Oneself
This is all the proof i need -
https://www.facebook.com/iApparel/posts/10151781171775771:0
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - peteadams - 01-18-2014
Regarding all the demand for testing, remember what the anti-GMO people are asking for: that testing discovers no problem with GMO crops. They will claim there's never enough testing because they are invoking the fallacy of proving the negative. If test x doesn't find a problem, then do test y; if that doesn't find a problem, you obviously missed test z; and on and on.
And of course there has been extensive, scientifically validated testing as well as real world experience over the past several decades. Here's another post of the link to the large review study recently released:
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
This is why Senator Ruderman will be having a tough time finding his proof, because the well-verified evidence is going the other way. And also why the county council should not be passing and why the mayor should not be rolling over and signing anti-agriculture, anti-science legislation. Some day the Big Island may be remembered in the same way Tennessee is remembered for the Scopes trial.
RE: Sen Ruderman, where is the proof - Futureresident - 01-18-2014
When it comes to humanity, at a certain point scientific proof is irrelevant. Take a look at the many thriving religious groups around the world! (That statement is not meant in any way to discredit or demean those religious groups, it's just a point I'm making). When it comes to GMOs it's the same. Regardless of the presence or lack of "conclusive scientific proof," China is turning away GMO products, the EU has strict rules pertaining to them, Bhutan has banned them outright, and many countries are following suit. It will soon cease to matter what science says because people are deciding against GMOs anyway. Hypothetically, even if GMOs are totally, 100% safe, if you can't sell them there is no point in growing them. Hate it or love it, adapt or go extinct.