Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
When a GMO is subject to the same rigors of test as a pharmaceutical and passes with flying colors then bring it on, I'll eat it too but until that time arrives they can stow it. I have an allergic reaction to GM laden corn products particularly sweeteners and they will cause me to involuntarily rapidly sit up in bed when just about to nod off in a sudden anxiety attack of which the anxiety can be felt shortly after ingesting the crap during the day. It took several years to identify the cause of this. I can also taste the herring oil in the splice gene tomato's and they taste more like fish than tomatoes to me.
No-one is going to convince me that GMO foods are just as safe and normal as their natural occurring predecessors. BS.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 4,905
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
That's kind of interesting ,especially since there are no gmo tomatoes on the market.
The tomato has been a symbol for genetically modified food for many years. In 1994, genetically modified tomatoes hit the market in the US as the first commercially available genetically modified crop. GM tomatoes have since disappeared.
This transgenic tomato (FlavrSavr) had a "deactivated" gene (Antisense approach). This meant that the tomato plant was no longer able to produce polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening. The premise was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavour. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Well thank god they took them off the "commercial market"... now I don't have bite into a tomato as often and get the unexpected nasty herring taste. Not that it happened often but there were at least a dozen occasions of unexpectedly experiencing those nasty things.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Also... just because a GM food is taken off the market does not mean it cannot slip into the food supply thereafter. Ending the commercial production does not mean they are no longer produced, once introduced the seeds can end up in anyone's garden and spread from there including back into the market and those that were in the commercial field from previous production can migrate beyond the confines of where they are initially grown via the pollination process. Cross pollination is also a factor so lets stop pretending these genetically modified crops are grown in guarded sealed growing facilities and the effect stops there.
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 274
Threads: 25
Joined: Nov 2003
Well said Russell. Russell's point that he will unequivocally NOT benefit from a GMO labeling bill is spot on. I am an average citizen, but do quite a bit of my shopping at health food stores NOT because I am convinced that GMO's are bad, but rather I am NOT convinced yet that they are good or even OK. So... until it can be proven definitively that they are safe for me and my growing children, I will choose to avoid them. Unfortunately for me and my pocket, there is no current way to know, without labeling, whether a product contains GMO products. So to be safe I shop at the health food store, where products are often carefully labeled. If the labeling law came into effect, I might be more prone to do more of my shopping at a regular supermarket as I now could, knowingly, CHOOSE which product to buy. The issue here folks, IS NOT, a debate of whether GMO's are bad or good, it is rather that they should be LABELED. If the GMO farmers and such are positive that there are absolutely no ill effects, what is the harm of a simple label? So in my case as, Russel put it, the label bill would cause me to shop at his store less, and thus cause a decrease in his profits. I, personally, support and applaud a senator with the guts, and selfless gung-ho, to pursue this. Keep up the good work senator. Angela
Posts: 7,734
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
You can't force GMO people to go through regulatory hurdles without also forcing the non-GMO people to go through the same thing. If you are going to put a label on the package, you need an expensive, time consuming, job-killing, beaurocratic, big-brother process to regulate, test, and enforce the labeling requirements. Otherwise, how do you know which label is honest? A label is a label, and both "claims" as to GMO or non-GMO have to be proven.
Personally, I am anti-GMO which is one of the reasons that we raise our own food. But until I see a regulatory process for the GMO issue that doesn't cost a ton of money and drive out farmers on both sides of the issue (more likely the little guy), I'm on the fence. I think if you buy food from somebody you don't know, it should be "buyer beware". Kind of tough in these global economic times, sure. Even being anti-GMO, taking a look at what happened to the papayas, what is currently happening to bananas, if you haven't noticed, globalization has introduced communicable plant diseases, insect vectors, fungus, and a host of other problems that threaten the world's food supply. Hawaii is one of the best examples of this. Just like we found out from the papayas, GMO might mean the difference between starving and thriving. It is unfortunate that these decisions are usually made by for-profit companies and not objective scientists.
Before you jump on any bandwagon, look at the incredible burden and cost it takes to get and renew an "organic" label. If that seems bad, take a look at the regs and see what it takes to be a company that certifies somebody as organic (hint... you can't unless you are already part of the lobbying machine). Tiny farms are exempt from the requirements. Larger ones, not so much. It's not done on the honor system, and it is very expensive. GMO regs are going to be a similar deal.
The government bodies who oversee these labeling requirements aren't run by former owners of small farms. They are run by former heads of the corporations that they represent and will return to some day.
Buy local. If you trust the source.
Simply claiming "we need GMO labels" to me means that you have no idea of the regulatory burden such claims will entail, and what that potentially means to small farmers who try to operate within administrative law.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
We look for the Non GMO Project label.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
This is a great resource to cut through all the BS and find the facts.
http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/...s_1.31.pdf
- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.
Posts: 358
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2012
Yep, labeling is kinda happening already with the Non GMO Project...
Nothing left to do but
Smile
Smile
Smile
Nothing left to do but
Smile
Smile
Smile
Posts: 4,905
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Why not require inspection of organic farms to insure compliance to organic regulations ?
How about testing of all organic food to unsure that it isn't contaminated by humanure.
Did you know that hepatitis and other diseases can be transferred to plants.No amount of washing can remove it because it is in the plant !!
How can humanure be made safe to use as fertilizer?
You would pretty much need to be a complete vegan, and even then it's probably iffy.
Posts: 167
Threads: 9
Joined: Dec 2008
Obie...certified organic farms are inspected annually by a 3rd party to insure compliance to USDA organic regulations.
---
by the way...I am also a Licensed Hawaii Real Estate Salesperson
http://www.RealEstateHawaiiBigIsland.com/
---
|
