+- 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: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill (/showthread.php?tid=13769)
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - Mimosa - 06-18-2014
Under 120 hectares per small farmer per crop per year .
Not acres - Hectares .
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - Derrick Barnicoat - 06-18-2014
I don't know where the "anti-gmo" slogan comes from but nobody can be anti gmo without labeling. I am not against gmo per se I am just pro labeling gmo items. The one great advantage of being american, at least in the way that america markets itself, is freedom. If we are truly free we should be able to choose what corporations and type of food we support and gmo crops should be properly isolated so they don't affect the freedom of the other farmers who want to grow non gmo produce. The fact that 99% of corn genetically modified and one corporation made the profits off of that is a monopoly, which is illegal. Same goes for soy. There are already laws against this stuff, but the damage has been done and since these corporations have so much money they get away with breaking the law. People should have had the right to choose right from the jump. That would be fair competition in the market place, but a majority of corn and soy were modified before people could know enough to even make a choice. Remember genetically modified produce was being sold in the market place long before the Human Genome Project was even complete. So "scientists" had no real way of telling how this will effect human biology and to be honest they still don't know, but like I said before I believe we should have the right to choose what we eat. Some people eat Mcdonald's and that is fine by me but don't force me to eat it.
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - DaVinci - 06-18-2014
So if you're pro-labeling, then you're either anti-science or anti-GMO, depending on who you ask. But if you liked "Cosmos" and you are also anti-GMO then there's just something wrong with you. And if you understand quantum mechanics but are still pro-labeling then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. And if you are pro-GMO then you have to be anti-labeling unless you're in Japan, in which case you are pro-papaya but also pro-labeling because... sorry, my head just exploded. I really REALLY wish Richard Ha would just start being honest with everybody and admit that he's mostly just pro-profits.
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - kalakoa - 06-19-2014
So if you're pro-labeling, then you're either anti-science or anti-GMO
Don't people have a right to know what's in their food regardless of the possible GMO content and/or their personal stance on GMO?
Example: I want to know whether RoundUp was used on (or near) my food -- whether or not that food is GMO.
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - Derrick Barnicoat - 06-19-2014
I think DaVinci was being sarcastic, but seriously how could anyone effectively be "anti gmo" when there is no clear way to know whether the food in the market is gmo or not? Let GMO compete with non GMO in the market in a fair way to see if people really want it or not.
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - peteadams - 06-19-2014
DaVinci wrote: "So if you're pro-labeling, then you're either anti-science or anti-GMO, depending on who you ask.”
Anti-science will do. The science says there is no food safety, environmental damage, allergenic, etc. issue with GMO's. For example, this metastudy is often cited: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html
So your desire to write into the law of the land labeling requirements for products with GMO content rests on what?
- you ignore the science and are filled with overwhelming fear of harm from GMO’s.
- you ignore the science and just feel “there must be something else.”
- you ignore the science and feel icky about “contamination."
- you ignore the science because your delicate sensibilities about what you eat trumps everything and justifies the force of law to control what crops a farmer can grow.
So, yes, anti-science will do. As others have pointed out, when there is no rational basis for harm as a justification for forcing labeling, labeling about anything at all could be forced. Was the food harvested on a holy day? Was the farm field certified by someone to be free of some kind of stuff I’m don’t like? During legislative hearings, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to be the agency to enforce GMO labeling because there simply was no public health concern.
And, given the amount of unfounded fear generated around GMO’s the issue is not, as often claimed, about transparency or information, but rather the demonization of GMO's.
"I really REALLY wish Richard Ha would just start being honest with everybody and admit that he's mostly just pro-profits.”
You realize that when you are talking about the relatively small scale agriculture on the Big Island, “profit” means earning a living a living and feeding your family based on your labors. As Richard has often said (more or less) “when farmers can make money, farmers will farm.” We really, really do need farmers to farm on the Big Island and be able to make a living doing so. So, in this context, I am sure he would agree that he is “pro-profits."
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - kalakoa - 06-19-2014
The science says there is no food safety, environmental damage, allergenic, etc.
Whose "science" can be taken seriously when everything has been monetized and politicized? Scientifically speaking, it's incredibly unlikely that seven IRS employees could have lost all their emails in a "crash" ... that only came to light after they were the focus of an investigation.
there is no rational basis for harm as a justification for forcing labeling
Any labeling "requirement" will be watered down into a marketing gimmick, science and its pesky "rational basis for harm" need not apply.
when farmers can make money, farmers will farm
A premium market for certified non-GMO food would make small-scale "boutique" farming profitable enough to earn a living, regardless of science or "harm".
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - fishenjim - 06-19-2014
Science,inventors of such great products as DDT,PBA,Agent orange etc. werent these all safe products at one time. I dont think its a pro or anti gmo debate. more of a want to learn from history or repeat it. Ask some farmers in India about gmo versus land race crops. If their crops fail they die its about diversity to them and monoculture is not diversity. Dont Be suprised when the big oops comes out of monsantos mouth.Science these days is to make cash just like drug companys. How about anti getting screwed by greedy science.
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - pahoated - 06-19-2014
quote:
Originally posted by Mimosa
We find it interesting that in almost every mode of transport these days - is the use of GMO corn in every tank full of fuel.
We also find it most interesting that even at Island Naturals,they use plastic containers with GMO in them.
You have a point but kind of miss the point. These applications are why corn has the most GMO types and how they aren't approved for human consumption. There are hundreds of GMO corn variations now, and not all are just to be able to tolerate glysophate (Roundup).
Ethanol in gasoline has been a big push to grow corn faster with more cellulose. Ethanol as a gasoline additive was seen as a way to cleaner emissions while reducing the price of gas. This was under George W. Bush. The first thing that happened is the price of corn skyrocketed, so that corn for food price tripled. Now, it's proving that the cleaner air provided by ethanol-gasoline combustion is overridden by all the diesel transportation it takes to plant and haul the corn.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/15/big-ethanols-bad-week-just-got-worse-epa-announces-reduction-to-2014-biofuels-requirements/
Big Ethanol’s bad week just got worse: EPA announces reduction to 2014 biofuels requirements
Now, the ex-founder of Greenpeace has come out and recommended the acceptance of GMO golden rice, while Greenpeace remains fiercely anti-GMO and especially against GMO golden rice:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/former-greenpeace-leading-light-condemns-them-for-opposing-gm-golden-rice-crop-that-could-save-two-million-children-from-starvation-per-year-9097170.html
Former Greenpeace leading light condemns them for opposing GM 'golden rice' crop that could save two million children from starvation per year
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/crimes-against-humanity
The Crime against Humanity
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
RE: Why farmers sued the county about ANTI GMO bill - kalakoa - 06-19-2014
corn has the most GMO types and how they aren't approved for human consumption
Yet it's perfectly okay to use them as animal feed, then sell those animals for food.
Ethanol as a gasoline additive
Ethanol requires more energy to create than it releases when burned. Diverting a food crop to fuel is one of the biggest scams of the last decade.
I'll ask, once more, why we're wasting valuable time and effort fighting this at the County level when any GMO regulations are (or will soon be) pre-empted by State and/or Federal laws, especially where County has demonstrated their willingness to cede local control.