+- 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)
Am I allowed to speak? - Russell - 01-20-2014
In a recent editorial, Mr. Richard Ha accused me of conflict of interest because I speak out about GMO issues, claiming I have no right to express my opinion or to vote on such issues because I am in the natural foods business. According to him, my comments about GMOs will unfairly benefit my business. Mr. Ha is incorrect legally, ethically, and logically.
According to the authority on such matters, which includes the Senate President and the Senate attorney's office, there is no such conflict of interest, legally. Only if I were to promote a position that benefited my company to the exclusion of others would there be a concern. Actions that might benefit an entire industry are not conflicts of interest. Rules 81 and 85 of the Hawaii State Senate clarify this.
Ethically, there is no conflict in speaking out about issues of any sort, especially those in which I have expertise. Of course a legislator brings his/her background and expertise to the table. This is natural, fair, and it can be no other way. After 35 years in the natural foods business, I feel qualified to speak on natural food, food marketing, and organic issues. I have studied the GMO issue seriously for over 10 years, delving deeply into the science and fictions on both sides of the issue. If anything, the obligation to speak out is greater for a legislator than for a private citizen.
Logically Mr. Ha has it exactly backwards, which I have explained to him several times. If my advocacy were to somehow be fully successful GMOs would be labeled, as is desired by 90% of the population. When that happens, every consumer will be able to choose safe non-GMO food in every supermarket, and have less need for a natural food store. Today, the biggest driver of organic food's growth is the desire to avoid GMOs. Labeling GMOs, the goal of my advocacy, will harm my business rather than help it.
Let's consider the suggestion that one should not speak on the subjects about which he/she is most knowledgeable. According to this logic, a farmer should not speak about farming issues, which might benefit farmers. An educator should not advocate for education, as it might improve their school. An attorney should not pass laws relating to the legal field, as that might benefit lawyers. In fact, the expertise we bring to discussions and to the legislature is desirable and necessary.
On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I am encouraged by his words, "Never be afraid to do what's right, especially when the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way."
No one gives up their right to speak when they get elected to public office, or to vote on issues of all sorts. There are responsibilities that come with the job, which I take seriously. Being silent is not one of them.
-----------
Russell Ruderman is the owner of Island Naturals Markets and State Senator from Puna and Ka'u.
Russell
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Wao nahele kane - 01-20-2014
I see no conflict of interest.
I think we'll all have definitive non-arguable results within a couple years.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/truth-about-the-seralini-rat-tumor-gmo-study-explodes/
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Obie - 01-20-2014
You are allowed to speak but you posted a completely erroneous bunch of B.S.
You still haven't backed up your claim's
"Sen Ruderman, where is the proof" ?????
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - PaulW - 01-20-2014
"GMOs would be labeled, as is desired by 90% of the population"
How do you know this? When it was put to the test in California it didn't even make 50%.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Wao nahele kane - 01-20-2014
Personally I'd prefer knowing if a FOOD contains a GMO product.
Here's the rub gents and something you obviously failed to recognize.
If a GMO seed and plant can be considered a rights owned product then it's legal classification is likewise not as it was in the natural form and therefore no-longer legally natural Corn and therefore has no right being labeled as natural corn would be.
The F'ing legal door swings both damn ways!
Who's going to be the first damn hypocrite to tell me otherwise?
Speak up!
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Adam-I-Am - 01-20-2014
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"GMOs would be labeled, as is desired by 90% of the population"
How do you know this? When it was put to the test in California it didn't even make 50%.
Partials truths are the same as complete untruths. The corporations spent 10's of millions of dollars in California with blanket TV spots.
Behind the government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance ... to the people. To destroy this invisible government and to (end) the un-holy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task ... of the day.
— Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - PaulW - 01-20-2014
"When it was put to the test in California it didn't even make 50%"
That is not a "partial truth", that is an easily verifiable 100%-true fact.
But then GMO scaremongering doesn't care about facts.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Wao nahele kane - 01-20-2014
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"When it was put to the test in California it didn't even make 50%"
That is not a "partial truth", that is an easily verifiable 100%-true fact.
But then GMO scaremongering doesn't care about facts.
Scaremongering... WTF?
Shows us the mountain of health studies proving GM foods are safe.
Yeah that's right, you don't have that data... because it doesn't exist.
So in your befuddled mind it's fine and dandy to genetically modify a food and shove it down your throat without substantial study.
Bon Appétit Lab Rat.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - malolo - 01-20-2014
Oh dear, oh dear -- someone on the forum's off by a few percentage points?
93% (plus or minus 3%... or hmmm... 90%) clearly isn't good enough?
"Americans overwhelmingly support labeling foods that have been genetically modified or engineered, according to a New York Times poll conducted this year, with 93 percent of respondents saying that foods containing such ingredients should be identified."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html?_r=0
RE: Am I allowed to speak? - Adam-I-Am - 01-20-2014
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"When it was put to the test in California it didn't even make 50%"
That is not a "partial truth", that is an easily verifiable 100%-true fact.
But then GMO scaremongering doesn't care about facts.
You need to understand what "partial truth" means. Can the vote in California be FULLY understood by someone WITHOUT knowing that the corporations that profit from GMO spent 10's of millions of bucks to defeat the proposition? My answer is no.
Partial truths are used all the time by the moneyed powers: "We all breathe C02 -- so ... how could C02 be harmful to the planet?" It takes a really low IQ to believe this statement or the willingness to be led around by the nose by those who profit from partial truths.