Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's

[Kapohocat]

Thank you for the link, Obie. Great explanation.

[Richard Ha]

What is top of mind for local farmers is the anti GMO council hearing tomorrow. Thought I would share
http://hahaha.hamakuasprings.com/2013/11...ctory.html

[Russell]

Some have said I have a vested interest, and stand to profit from GMO labeling. I repeat: if GMOs are labeled then concerned shoppers can safely shop GMO-free in grocery stores, thus harming my business. And why have I proposed several bills to protect direct-farm sales, and home-based food businesses if I am in competition with farmers markets? I don't mind disagreement on ideas, but you ought not to attack my motivation while obviously lacking the slightest knowledge of my concerns.

One person said we cannot afford the cost of labeling. Companies change their labels all the time. The actual cost of labeling GMOs is zero.

Richard Ha says geothermal prices will stay the same for 500,000 years. Of course, statistically speaking all the geothermal areas will be covered by lava in much less time, but Richard assures us that won't affect price. This must be the 'researched' style of speaking that Rob admires.

I do understand why GMO proponents like Richard Ha. It's the same reason Tea Partiers love Sarah Palin; They spout the slogans they want to hear, undeterred by logic or reality.

Russell

[Obie]

Russell

Please post a reasonable rebuttal to this statement.

Reputable regulatory and health agencies in the U.S. and EU that have looked closely at GMOs found them safe, as have the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Academy.

[kalakoa]

Much noise and fury, signifying nothing. Or is it "pick your battles"?

I don't believe the County (or State) have sufficient standing to regulate GMO labeling; debating anything that even remotely involves "interstate commerce" is a waste of time and effort which only invites a lawsuit that will be lost (more time/money).

Posting signs about pesticide use, and maintaining a "buffer zone" around schools (think of the children!) are somewhat less unreasonable, and more importantly, involve activities that happen strictly within the County (or State).

Tea-party style "voting for the best slogan" makes a mockery of the very principles upon which America was founded. At least until tonight's episode of The Voice.

[Guest]

I am sorry Russell that you had felt compelled to defend yourself here. YOU are a man who is probably ahead of his time, especially here. I have liked a lot of your ideas in the last 15 years, and respect your hard work and dedication you put forth in any thing you do. You have shown to be open- minded, and yet a risk taker at the same time. I like both. Thank you, and I look forward to any other post you have in the near future on this topic or others. P.S you did start a few things here with creating more options and choices for the community, and with that came higher prices though too. Now would be a good time to offer better non-GMO products strait from the farms at better prices? Maybe a dream world or some thing to work for, stay open-minded.

[peteadams]

The push for GMO labeling is all about demonization, not information, much like the "Scarlet A" labeling employed by the Puritan witch hunters. Since there are no safety concerns regarding food consumption of GMOs (see the many links previously posted), "safe shopping" is not rationally a concern either.

Looking forward to Russell's "reasonable rebuttal."

[Russell]

Obie and Pete – Answer this reasonably, please: What is more likely? 60 countries regulate GMOs for hysterical reasons, or the science is suppressed in the U.S., where a former Monsanto V.P. is in charge of food policy?

During the time that you claim no effects from GMOs in the U.S. food supply, our rates of food allergies have increased over 50%, and autism rates are also way up.

The American Academy for Environmental Medicine (a widely respected American scientific organization) says:
“Animal studies indicate serious health risks … including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

A 2011 study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology showed that when Bt-toxin derived from Monsanto’s corn was exposed to human cells, the toxin disrupts the membrane in just 24 hours, causing certain fluid to leak through the cell walls. The authors specifically note, “This may be due to pore formation like in insect cells.” In other words, the toxin may be creating small holes in human cells in the same manner that it kills insects. The researchers “documented that modified Bt toxins [from GM plants] are not inert on human cells, but can exert toxicity.” 82 A 2011 Canadian study conducted at Sherbrooke Hospital discovered that 93% of the pregnant women they tested had Bt-toxin from Monsanto’s corn in their blood. And so did 80% of their unborn fetuses. 83

The British Medical Journal Lancet published several scientific, peer-reviewed studies, including one showing that rats fed GMO pototoes developed; Potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract; Smaller brains, livers and testicles; Partial atrophy of the liver; and Immune system damage. (Lancet, 1999)
Government of Austria found “increased infertility and lower birth weight” in rats in Nov. 2008.
Government of Italy in November 2008 found Multiple immune system responses In rats fed Bt corn.
L-trytophan produced by GMO bacteria killed about 100 people and caused
5,000-10,000 to fall sick.

Soon after GM soy was introduced into the British diet, researchers at the York Laboratory reported that allergies to soy had skyrocketed by 50% in a single year. The GMO soy was removed from the market by a concerned government.

I could go on but it won’t make any difference to closed minds.

Obie states that there is no way that Monsanto money influences legislators in our country. I’m sure Monsanto is donating millions of dollars to legislators out of benevolence.

Peteadams says “The push for GMO labeling is all about demonization, not information, much like the "Scarlet A" labeling employed by the Puritan witch hunters. Since there are no safety concerns regarding food consumption of GMOs … "safe shopping" is not rationally a concern either.”

“Witch hunters? No safety concerns?” I don’t know how one replies reasonably to this all-knowing being who is untouched by facts. I am out of here.

Gypsy and others, thank you!


Russell

[kalakoa]

There are no problems with GMO that can't be solved with expensive pharmaceuticals.

That's why insurance coverage is now mandatory.

Look, ma, no "anti-science wingnuttery" required -- big money corruption is more than adequate.

[Rob Tucker]

"Soon after GM soy was introduced into the British diet, researchers at the York Laboratory reported that allergies to soy had skyrocketed by 50% in a single year. The GMO soy was removed from the market by a concerned government."

From a British press (read the whole article):

British supermarkets, GMO soya and birth defects
Published on: Sat May 25, 2013
Author: Sue Branford
Source: LAB
UK supermarkets and the destructive GMO soya boom in South America

Over the last year the UK’s six largest supermarkets have all quietly dropped their non-GMO feed requirement for poultry and eggs. Tesco, Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, Morrison, ASDA and the Co-op are now selling chickens fed on genetically modified soya. Few consumers are aware of the change, for the retailers are not labeling their products as containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Co-op and Tesco have also misled their customers by claiming that GM feed given to animals is not detectable in animal products. This is not true. Several research studies have found that GM DNA from animal feed is present in the milk, meat, and eggs that people eat. This has been confirmed by the UK Government’s Food Standards Agency. If you would like to support a campaign to get the supermarkets to rethink their decision, sign the petition organised by GMO Action and write to the supermarkets.

RT: This article is not pro GMO. I bring this forward to question the statement that GM soya has been banned in England. According to this article it has not... though the author is concerned about it.

http://lab.org.uk/british-supermarkets-g...th-defects


And this (read the whole article for context) It is quite interesting:


Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics

Authors: Diahanna Lynch, and David Vogel

The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics - the-regulation-of-gmos-in-europe-and-the-united-states-a-case-study-of-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics

Publisher Council on Foreign Relations Press

Release Date April 5, 2001

This paper was prepared for a workshop on trans-Atlantic differences in GMO regulation sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations. It draws in part on an unpublished paper, "Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in Europe and the United States," co-authored with Diahanna Lynch.

INTRODUCTION

This paper seeks to place the divergent approaches of the European Union and United States toward the introduction and marketing of genetically modified (GM) foods and seeds in a broader context. It argues that an important key to understanding why Europe and the United States have chosen to regulate identical technologies in such a dissimilar fashion has to do with recent changes in politics of risk regulation in Europe. From the 1960s through the mid 1980s, the regulation of health, safety and environmental risks was generally stricter in the United States than in Europe. Since the mid 1980s, the obverse has often been the case: a wide array of European consumer and environmental regulations, including those governing GMOs, are now more restrictive than in the United States. In a number of important respects, European regulatory politics and policies over the last fifteen years resemble those of the United States between the late 1960s and the mid 1980s. They are often politicized, highly contentious and characterized by a suspicion of science and a mistrust of both government and industry. By contrast, the US regulation of GMOs resembles the European regulatory style of the 1970s: regulators have worked cooperatively with industry and been supportive of technological innovation, while non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have enjoyed little access to the policy process. [1]

This paper begins by reviewing comparative studies of health, safety and environmental regulation in Europe and the United States in order to place contemporary cross-Atlantic regulatory differences in an historical context. It then summarizes the evolution of American and European policies governing GMOs. The third section of the paper reviews a number of explanations for the differences in European and American regulatory policies toward this new agricultural technology, and the final section advances an explanation rooted in the emergence of a new European approach toward risk regulation in general, and food safety in particular.

http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/r...tics/p8688