Maui GMO protest

[Obie]

Bullwinkle,

A few studies for you to digest.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-publ...ments.html

Some reasons why GMO's are needed.

What is the current environmental situation?

A growing population, global warming, and loss of biodiversity have a tremendous impact on our environment.

By year 2050, there will be 9.3 billion people living on this planet. This means that in less than 50 years, world population is expected to increase by 3 billion. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the production, distribution, and stability of food products.

Unfortunately, cropland and population are not uniformly distributed. For example, China has only 1.4% of the world’s productive land1 but 20-25% of the world’s population. This situation is further aggravated by diminishing cropland due to erosion, fewer renewable resources, less water, and a reduced population working the land.

More here :

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/

[snorkle]

How connected is Monsanto is to the FDA and Washington lawmakers?

They've spent $70 million in lobbying since 1998 and $10 million in campaign contributions in the past decade. In early 2013, Michael Taylor, the former vice president of public policy at Monsanto, was named by President Obama as deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration. this
appointment underscores two things: how deeply embedded Monsanto has become in the higher ranks of government and how the company has been able to quietly influence national food policy.

details HERE

[Rob Tucker]

snorkle,

Is that supposed to be news?

[Delta9r]

Seems as newsworthy as the revolving door between the upper echelons of the corporate world and the regulatory agencies of our government. Sure we may have been aware of this for as long as we can remember, but many are complacently oblivious, thereby negating the principle of "Consent of the Governed."

When we see news articles claiming that Hawai'i is a main test-bed for the GMO industry, yet no conclusive study can prove safety; When we see advertisements on TV every day for lawsuits dealing with pharmaceuticals which have caused death and other unacceptable side effects, as well as drug commercials which list "Death" as a side effect; How can we feel that our regulatory governmental agencies truly have our best interests at heart?

"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."

[Obie]

So what do you think about people flying to Hawaii to protest about local county issues ?

Who is paying them ??

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

again - italic print for gmo identification - what is so hard about that - I dont get it

---

Bullwinkle,

This is just my opinion but I would explain "what is so hard about it?" this way.

1. Demand. Demand for such broad labeling could come from the FDA or through an act of Congress. To date the FDA has not found justification for such labeling. An act of Congress would largely (and maybe not even) be determined by popular demand. I think that the current demand for such action is a very, very small (but vocal) percentage of the general population.

2. Difficulty. Such labeling would involve hundreds of thousand of products. Additionally there would have to be a definition of what is GMO. It is nearly impossible for any product to declare or label itself 100% free of anything and that being the fact most all regulations specify a minimal level of acceptance of all kinds of stuff. One study I read stated that approx. 30% of foods labeled "organic" had some measurable level of GMO. Apparently GMO can be considered organic in some circles. Achieving 0% of anything or 100% of anything is, for practical purposes, not really possible.

This is not intended to change your mind. Labeling - one way or the other way- is fine by me. The market is starting to label some foods Non GMO (whether they are or not is TBD). This is only intended to provide some measure of explanation of why it isn't easy.

---

This would make sense....IF THE HEAD OF THE FDA WAS NOT A EX MONSANTO BOARD MEMBER...SMDH

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Originally posted by Bullwinkle

again - italic print for gmo identification - what is so hard about that - I dont get it

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but if you create a separate category for GMO vs non-GMO food it's easy to follow the supply chain to see what is so hard about it.
1) harvest - not all farmers combine or pick their own grains. Equipment is shared.
2) Transport to the granary - trucks are shared
3) Small town granary - grain is stored in large silos or buildings that contain product from all the neighboring farms. You would need two of everything.
4) Transport from local granary to mill or processing plant - would again require separate vehicles.

Not saying it can't be done. But it would not be easy.

[PaulW]

The head of the FDA was not a Monsanto board member.
You'll fit right in here - another anti-science crusader who likes spreading lies in ALL CAPS.

[Guest]

Head of FDA is named Michael R Taylor. he was Vice President of Monsanto.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

You might want to check facts before running your gums.

[Bullwinkle]

So.... what I am reading, is that according to many members of Punaweb ... The reason GMO cant marked as to containing GMO -

Is because the manufacturers are unclear what batches ingredients they have included in the product as well of not knowing the source of the ingredient

heaven help us if any one ingredient is ever tainted..... quite an indictment of the US food industry....

Im not buying - grin I think its just more parroted Koch Bros. drivel

Still waiting for a peer reviewed long term gmo safety study as well - Geo - got links as promised?