+- 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: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's (/showthread.php?tid=11989)
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - Bullwinkle - 11-25-2013
Meanwhile back at the ranch - exports require labeling if they are to be shipped to overseas markets .....
Its the GMO for internal consumption that is unmarked
why the big objection by domestic producers?
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - kalakoa - 11-25-2013
I've always found claims about "domestic food production" to be somewhat disingenuous.
Funny thing: most of the "locally produced" food is exported, which means "interstate commerce", which translates to "don't waste your time with local legislation".
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - Bullwinkle - 11-25-2013
Interstate Commerce:
Funny thing about an island in the Pacific - Moot point by the courts
own logic.
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - MarkP - 11-25-2013
Oneself:
You provide a link to a discredited study about all the cancer it causes and no documentation at all for the allegedly indisputable fact that gmo foods contain 1/4 the nutrients of organically grown food. You lost me.
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - Guest - 11-25-2013
Argue any points or links you want, but FARM-ACY is always greater than PHARM-ACY.
Really disappointed that more people on HI wouldn't consider that common knowledge, but than again, most of them probably aren't sitting at a computer.
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - dragon2k - 11-25-2013
I remember 20 years ago when people ridiculed a new and struggling segment of the food industry. They said it would never make it. They said it was a joke, a waste of time. Fast forward to today and organic food is a multi billion dollar segment. Folks like Richard can laugh all they want now but history has a way of getting the last Ha Ha!
[
]Nothing left to do but
Smile
Smile
Smile
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - Richard Ha - 11-25-2013
Dragon. I support organics, permaculture, home gardens and everything else. We need every form of growing food to achieve food self sufficiency. The biggest competitor of local organics is industrial organics from the mainland. You don't see local organics in the supermarkets as much as mainland organics. Hector Valenzuela suggested that local organic farmers seek high end niche markets. He recognizes that the cost to produce local organic produce is high. We don't have winter to kill off the bad bugs!
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - dragon2k - 11-25-2013
I hear you on your last point Richard. A short frost would do us a world of good!
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - MarkP - 11-26-2013
One of the reasons I am so skeptical of blanket results such as the tables above is that in effect they state that you can know how nutritious either of the groups are. I read a book, Gardening When It Counts, that said that analysis of medical records of army inductees showed significant nutrition based differences in health depending on where the inductee grew up. Perhaps the tables above were based on cherry-picked data where the organic produce was from a highly fertile area and non-organics were from a really hard-scrabble area. This is really basic science and the data above seems not to address the issue at all.
RE: Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's - OpenD - 11-26-2013
quote:
Originally posted by MarkP Perhaps the tables above were based on cherry-picked data where the organic produce was from a highly fertile area and non-organics were from a really hard-scrabble area.
Cherry-picking small-scale studies that may or may not even be statistically valid is a key tool of the pseudo-science activism that the whole alt.med and scary.food community feeds itself on.
I don't have time to stop and dig it up right now, but maybe you can look it up... there was a very credible analysis done recently of organic vs conventional produce, which showed no nutritional advantage to organics at all. What difference there was, and admittedly it is an important difference, is that organics had lower levels of residual pesticides.
But the claims that conventional crops, and especially GMO crops, somehow have lower nutritional content is just wishful thinking, with no credible scientific proof.
Why would they? As Dr. Gonsalves said... "It was a papaya before we did our work, and it's still a papaya afterwards."