Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[Adam-I-Am]

The GMO argument isn't fully understood unless the basic destructiveness of corporations is understood. And the corporations are moving into Hawaii now -- big time.

The American revolution WAS ALL ABOUT getting away from what corporations were all about. No?

Thomas Jefferson — "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of moneyed incorporations."

Andrew Jackson — "...unless you check this thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations."

Abraham Lincoln — "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

They ALL warned us that corporations would DESTROY the USA. Do you think what they said is no longer valid?

Unfortunately we have RUSH LIMBAUGH and a lot of knuckleheads who cut and paste every word that demagogue says. They stupidly think that corporations are like the mom and pop businesses that used to be the backbone of America.

(Haven't you noticed all the mom and pop businesses go out of business and get replaced by chain corporate businesses. Think Olive Garden etc.)

The CEOs of corporations do bad things because if they didn't, they'd be out of a job. "Seeds? Hmmmm how can we make money off of seeds? Hey, I got a good idea, let's patent a seed, and by money and influence (because we DO have more money and more influence in congress than do others) get farmers to buy those seeds from us."

Then, that CEO retires with a $100 million bonus and the NEXT CEO comes in and says, "hmmm, how can I get my $100 million bonus from agriculture in America?

[Rob Tucker]

Adam-I-Am,

You are bringing clarity to the debate as I see it. A large complaint or problem is with the business model (Monsanto as an example) rather than the science. The two need to be treated separately though some oppose the science as we all know.

The GM papaya, resistant to the ring spot virus, was a university development not a corporate development and as such it seems to be treated differently.

The mixing of attitudes between science and business models creates real confusion. If you don't like the science - oppose the science. If you don't like the business model - oppose the business model. mixing the two in a haphazard way doesn't help.

[punaticbychoice]

Exactly the point Rob.
Thank you.

[Wao nahele kane]

How can you separate the two (business model and science) when the business model controls the scientific regulatory process through political and bureaucratic positioning/leveraging?
The science safety control aspects were to be within the USDA, FDA, CDC, etc, but they have been hog tied by political means and through placing regulatory heads with a clear conflict of interest in the matter over these agencies/departments.
We didn't allow the parent companies (pharmaceuticals) of their GE subsidiaries get away with simply introducing a drug without the scientific checks and balances through the aforementioned regulatory agencies. In essence when you remove the safety net you end up with dangerous scientifically produced products. There was a reason these regulatory agencies were put in place, restraining them from serving their purpose doesn't bode well.
As I said several pages back... if the science is left unchecked and does harm due to the conflict of interest in the business and political models, it will reflect badly upon an otherwise important science.

- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[Wao nahele kane]

Let's look at "Substantial equivalence" for a moment. This is the process in which the FDA has been ordered to determine whether or not a GE crop will be approved through the FDA.
Would someone who is PRO GMO (as is currently implemented) please define "Substantial equivalence" as utilized for the determination of GE crop approvals. I know what it means but would like the opposition to define it so we are both talking the same aspect meanings within the approval process.


- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[Bullwinkle]

Meanwhile at the ranch (Monsanto share holders meeting)

"At the Monsanto shareholders' meeting on Tuesday in which activists called for a vote on whether the company should enact mandatory GMO labeling, two things were clear: Mandatory GMO labels aren't happening any time soon, and the police have Monsanto's back."

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrf...labels.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28...82805.html

edit....posted to the huff post story:

Mr. Tucker and all others who believe "the anti GMO stuff is pure ignorance", I suggest you research this issue further. There is a reason that so many farmers who tried GMO seeds are now advocating against their use. There is a reason so many communities where GMOs are grown are complaining of toxic illness and their nations are rejecting the cultivation of GMO crops and associated pesticides.

I sponsored Bill 113 here on the island of Hawaii - basically banning further cultivation of GMO crops -- so we can take a hard look at what if any GMO crops should be allowed. This Bill became law in December of 2013.

Unfortunately US federal government does not require pre-marketing health and safety testing, and there is little to no state regulation of GMO crops (which contaminate neighboring non-GMO crops). Our state legislators are now busy kowtowing to to the ag-chemical multinationals to pass a law, that prohibits any county level law that would interfere with their these biotech farming practices regardless of whatever harm to the people and the ecosystems. Their corporate
agenda is to control seed and all food crops, and stand behind federal patent laws, to withhold the information needed to do independent long-term studies.

Some of these gene-manipulated crops with their associated pesticide have caused the most harm to the young and unborn. So the future of our children and their children is at stake. Science without conscience is not acceptable.

Margaret Wille, Councilwoman, County of Hawaii

[TomK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
ETA:
Here's an example of an independent scientific study that determines if a GM crop is safe or not for biological consumption. It's known as a "long term toxicological study".
http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

---

Here's a small collection of some peer review of that paper from some independent, er, "peers":

http://www.biotech-now.org/food-and-agri...ralini-2-0#

I'm no biologist or geneticist, but can certainly see where that paper comes into the "junk science" category both in its statistical analysis and in its so-called use of the scientific method. If this is an example of what you think is a scientific study, then you have a lot to learn.

In the meantime, you might want to spend some time telling us what is or is not wrong with the studies you can read via here:

http://50.62.76.192/genera/guide/

That link also allows you to provide studies that may show GMOs are unsafe. I hope you have a fun time with that as it seems to be what you are asking for.

[TomK]

"Here's the other aspect, the majority of the GM crop products are "round-up ready"."

You might be right. Provide the evidence.

[Wao nahele kane]

Enjoy your new "normal".

- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.

[Wao nahele kane]

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_28...grow-3346/



- Armed citizens provide security of a free State.