+- 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: Am I allowed to speak? (/showthread.php?tid=13011)
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - bluesboy - 01-21-2014
This thread isn't about gmo, it's about a conflict of interest. Chill out already.
I feel there is no conflict of interest.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Rob Tucker - 01-21-2014
I do not support this claim of conflict of interest. If Senator Ruderman had an undisclosed financial interest in a subject before the senate I might think differently. There is absolutely no secret of the senator's long involvement in the health food industry.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - geochem - 01-21-2014
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Tucker
There is absolutely no secret of the senator's long involvement in the health food industry.
To make a point Rob - why do you call it a health food industry? To paraphrase an earlier post "where are the thousands of studies showing that organic foods are healthier than conventionally produced crops?". Of course, there are none - because there isn't any - the body count of consumers killed by consumption of "health" food is stunning - and the body count from consumption of GMO foods for more than a dozen years is exactly "0". The organic foods industry is a con of credulous - and often unwell - people to induce them to pay extortionate prices for no benefit whatsoever. I object to having a mouthpiece for such an industry, as part of their marketing strategy, depriving me of my rights to grow perfectly safe crops on my own property using accepted farming practices.
Every state employee and every board member for state committees is admonished to avoid conflicts of interest - or the appearance of a conflict of interest - in the execution of their duties. Senator Ruderman, an owner of a significant part of the state's organic foods industry, will clearly benefit financially from any action to denigrate the conventionally farmed foods in the state - and will undoubtedly benefit from the controversy even if his effort fails. If that isn't a conflict in law, it certainly is a conflict in appearance.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - peteadams - 01-21-2014
Regarding the link provided by Wao Nahele Kane http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/summary.htm, he neglected to note the sentences prior to his quote:
quote:When the Starlink corn was found in 2000 in the human consumption food supply, there were complaints by some that they had an allergic reaction to it so the CDC was asked to study them to see whether their reactions could be linked to the corn. Cry9c is the Bt gene that produces the Cry9c protein. The difficulties alluded to in Wao's quote may be that the FDA had to develop its own assay method, "enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay" (ELISA), find pre-GMO samples for comparison and ship samples between the CDC and FDA for analysis.
The ELISA [assay] method found that none of the CDC-submitted samples reacted in a manner consistent with an allergic response to the Cry9c protein.
These findings do not provide any evidence that the reactions that the affected people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the Cry9c protein.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Wao nahele kane - 01-21-2014
quote:
Originally posted by peteadams
Regarding the link provided by Wao Nahele Kane http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/summary.htm, he neglected to note the sentences prior to his quote:
quote:When the Starlink corn was found in 2000 in the human consumption food supply, there were complaints by some that they had an allergic reaction to it so the CDC was asked to study them to see whether their reactions could be linked to the corn. Cry9c is the Bt gene that produces the Cry9c protein. The difficulties alluded to in Wao's quote may be that the FDA had to develop its own assay method, "enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay" (ELISA), find pre-GMO samples for comparison and ship samples between the CDC and FDA for analysis.
The ELISA [assay] method found that none of the CDC-submitted samples reacted in a manner consistent with an allergic response to the Cry9c protein.
These findings do not provide any evidence that the reactions that the affected people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the Cry9c protein.
I neglected nothing as I provided the link and therefore it's up to the reader to fill in remainder for themselves.
In your case you still fail to see that GMO is routinely unleashed upon the public without proper study and that's the bottom line. So in all your dancing about with your voodoo stick in hand... you missed the point.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Wao nahele kane - 01-21-2014
Conflict of interest?
Let's look at it from a business perspective and see where it takes us.
Working to remove GMO and pesticides from the market only serve to decrease the differences between Safeway/KTA/etc. and a Health Food Store and would be counter productive for the survival of the niche Health Food Store overall. If Russell promoted GMO products then he would be voting in opposition of his conscience and clearly for the success of his business model and therefore acting in conflict of interest. If GMO and pesticides were removed tomorrow, the Health food Store niche would suffer tremendously as Safeway/KTA and the likes would offer very much the same products as the Health Food Store.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Chunkster - 01-21-2014
Yes, you have a right to speak, and no, I don't think this rises to the level of a serious conflict of interest. What concerns me is the amount of political "capital" you are willing to expend on what is beginning to look like a fanatical position on a single issue. You occasionally remind us that you have other goals and projects in mind, but all we seem to hear about is GMO, GMO, GMO. This either shows us that you are unable to get your agenda in front of your constituents in a prioritized manner or that you are letting your opponents on this issue take control of the it. Either way, it does not portend well for success. A lot of us are questioning your judgement, and a GMO backlash could be on the way.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - rbrgs - 01-21-2014
Santa Catarina (dwarf apple) bananas (available, and certified organic, at your local natural food store, or in commercial form at local supermarkets, and as plants at Home Depot) are (according to the definition in Bill 113) a GMO. This variety is a modern hybrid bred with the assistance of a mutagen. There are other GMO bananas available, too, but only Santa Catarina is cultivated commercially (so far).
I'd like to see both Richard (who grows this variety) and Russell (who sells it) comment on what will happen if the county actually tries to enforce this law.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - sittall - 01-21-2014
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems its the BT infused corn/soybean seeds that present a possible health issue, not GMO or genetically engineered seeds as a whole. Most of us are very comfortable eating fruit from GE dwarf tree but NOT so comfortable eating a BT infused product. For me, its HOW a product is modified, and not so much that it IS a 'genetically modified organism'. Personally I want to thank Russell for bringing the BT issue to our attention.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - rbrgs - 01-21-2014
Yeah, Monsatan is evil and all that. But a blanket ban on GMOs is like banning chemistry because someone made mustard gas.