Posts: 563
Threads: 60
Joined: Jun 2013
quote:
Originally posted by peteadams
DaVinci wrote: "So if you're pro-labeling, then you're either anti-science or anti-GMO, depending on who you ask.”
Anti-science will do. The science says there is no food safety, environmental damage, allergenic, etc. issue with GMO's. For example, this metastudy is often cited: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...afety.html
So your desire to write into the law of the land labeling requirements for products with GMO content rests on what?
- you ignore the science and are filled with overwhelming fear of harm from GMO’s.
- you ignore the science and just feel “there must be something else.”
- you ignore the science and feel icky about “contamination."
- you ignore the science because your delicate sensibilities about what you eat trumps everything and justifies the force of law to control what crops a farmer can grow.
So, yes, anti-science will do. As others have pointed out, when there is no rational basis for harm as a justification for forcing labeling, labeling about anything at all could be forced. Was the food harvested on a holy day? Was the farm field certified by someone to be free of some kind of stuff I’m don’t like? During legislative hearings, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to be the agency to enforce GMO labeling because there simply was no public health concern.
And, given the amount of unfounded fear generated around GMO’s the issue is not, as often claimed, about transparency or information, but rather the demonization of GMO's.
"I really REALLY wish Richard Ha would just start being honest with everybody and admit that he's mostly just pro-profits.”
You realize that when you are talking about the relatively small scale agriculture on the Big Island, “profit” means earning a living a living and feeding your family based on your labors. As Richard has often said (more or less) “when farmers can make money, farmers will farm.” We really, really do need farmers to farm on the Big Island and be able to make a living doing so. So, in this context, I am sure he would agree that he is “pro-profits."
Confirmed: DNA From Genetically Modified Cropsto Can Be Transferred In
Humans Who Eat Them :http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/09/confirmed-dna-from-genetically-modified-crops-can-be-transfered-to-humans-who-eat-them-2/
You keep talking science - so here is my post from my thread "Hawaii Ground Zero"
You didn't reply to my 2nd post about a Peer reviewed journal named Public Library of Science or PLOS,
and the other and their report on ; Confirmed: DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred In Humans Who Eat Them.
As well this extract relates to small farmers which has been mentioned frequently on this thread:
EXTRACT:
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles..._21786.cfm
"Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world... [This] casts serious doubt on the foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa."
Opihikaobob says : Not only Africa should be concerned
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Why are they suing the county? It didn't actually seem to be included in the OP or any subsequent posts.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
"You didn't reply to my 2nd post about a Peer reviewed journal named Public Library of Science or PLOS,..."
Sure I did, saying things like "The academic PLOS study doesn't mention GMO..." and "The connection to GMO's is entirely made up. There was no claim in the PLOS article that the the bloodstream DNA fragments they found affected health...There was no claim that GM DNA fragments were discoverered." http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18747
Copying and pasting a big chunk of the "collective-evolution" article didn't add anything to that discussion. Much of it is generic stuff that's obviously intended to scare someone who doesn't know much about GMO's or genetics. Nowhere is any actual connection made to the actual effects of any GMO plant. Just a lot of "maybe this" and "speculate about that."
Then you change the subject to Monsanto. There's a lot of confusion going around about the difference between GMO, a scientific technique with wide applicability, and a corporation. They are different, you know. The criticism that I've seen about the Gates Foundation's work in Africa has centered around their efforts to encourage small farmers to make a living from very small farms rather than encouraging a more complex economy in Africa that pays better than a step above subsistence farming.
Agree or not with that criticism, what this has to do with GMO safety or why farmers on the Big Island have to be subject to laws based on an antipathy to science is obscure, at least. And, defaming science as a whole with statements like "[w]hose "science" can be taken seriously when everything has been monetized and politicized?" is also pretty useless. Really, not "everything" has been "monetized and politicized" in academic science. Really.
Posts: 308
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2013
Monsanto controls 80 percent of gmo corn and 93 percent of gmo soy and that is one corporation of the few that control all GMOs. So for all intents and purposes there is no difference between GMOs and corporations. You think individuals are splicing genes in their kitchen?
This argument reminds me of the nuclear argument in the late '40s. Now we are all sitting ducks with all the radioactivity on this planet. Science is not just one way. Science is merely a language in which to describe the things that go on in this universe. It is fluid and constantly changing and like any language that uses numbers and letters it can describe all sides. Science will be able to describe where we messed up but it isn't going to save us once our DNA is compromised.
As I said earlier GMO was introduced in '96 the Human Genome had not been fully realized until 2003. The corporations clearly jumped the gun because they saw dollar signs with no regard as to how it would effect humanity because they don't care about people. If world hunger is a real issue for them there are ways to solve that. Maybe they could use science to figure out how to distribute the abundance of food on this planet. Supermarkets and restaurants throw perfectly edible food in the garbage constantly in the U.S. due to "sell by labels"
and fresh food in Hawaii just falls off the tree and rots on the ground meanwhile people go hungry in places that have become so disjointed by war and politics that people don't even know how to grow what they can on their own land. Education and efficient distribution could solve everything. All these things and GMO go on soley for the profit of the elite few. People literally die everyday so corporations like monsanto can make profit.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
I know several individuals who work with transgenics. Completely outside corporations all of them! So there goes that theory.
Posts: 14,103
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Monsanto controls 80 percent of gmo corn and 93 percent of gmo soy
The endgame is "rent seeking", just as the wireless carriers do with our "public" airwaves.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
I'll ask, once more, why we're wasting valuable time and effort fighting this at the County level when any GMO regulations are (or will soon be) pre-empted by State and/or Federal laws, especially where County has demonstrated their willingness to cede local control.
There has to be litigation at the local level to raise it to the federal and state level. Right now, it's doubtful the FDA has even heard of the Hawaii county ban. That is kind of strange right there, other states are getting headlines for GMO label votes, and nobody even whispers that Hawaii county has an outright ban.
As for the corn being modified to feed animals, cows have seven stomachs and we drink their babies' milk. Interesting thing about cow milk, up until 7,000 years ago, adult humans were unable to drink cow milk because there was no enzyme to process lactose. Somewhere around 7,000 years ago, coinciding with the invention of agriculture, a genetic mutation occurred in humans in multiple locations around the planet so that most adults could drink cow's milk. This genetic mutation is being attributed to the invention of agriculture and domestication of the cow. About 1/3 of humans don't have this genetic mutation and they are known as lactose intolerant.
Nature is conducting genetic modification all the time, and most of the modifications are harmful to the being, resulting in defects or death. Every once in awhile, the genetic modification is successful and passed on to future generations.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Posts: 308
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2013
quote:
Originally posted by rainyjim
I know several individuals who work with transgenics. Completely outside corporations all of them! So there goes that theory.
Those are the facts folks Rainy Jim knows some people. Sounds legit.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Maybe you want me to tell you where they work or their home address ? Jeez.
This is a community forum and some of us actually know each other - btw who the f*** are you again? Do you even live on this island?
Posts: 308
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2013
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
I'll ask, once more, why we're wasting valuable time and effort fighting this at the County level when any GMO regulations are (or will soon be) pre-empted by State and/or Federal laws, especially where County has demonstrated their willingness to cede local control.
There has to be litigation at the local level to raise it to the federal and state level. Right now, it's doubtful the FDA has even heard of the Hawaii county ban. That is kind of strange right there, other states are getting headlines for GMO label votes, and nobody even whispers that Hawaii county has an outright ban.
As for the corn being modified to feed animals, cows have seven stomachs and we drink their babies' milk. Interesting thing about cow milk, up until 7,000 years ago, adult humans were unable to drink cow milk because there was no enzyme to process lactose. Somewhere around 7,000 years ago, coinciding with the invention of agriculture, a genetic mutation occurred in humans in multiple locations around the planet so that most adults could drink cow's milk. This genetic mutation is being attributed to the invention of agriculture and domestication of the cow. About 1/3 of humans don't have this genetic mutation and they are known as lactose intolerant.
Nature is conducting genetic modification all the time, and most of the modifications are harmful to the being, resulting in defects or death. Every once in awhile, the genetic modification is successful and passed on to future generations.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
Yes this is how nature works outside the lab but your example is flawed because it's not even legal to drink raw milk thus it must be processed in order for us to digest it with out risking disease. Even still science has shown that dairy is linked to high rates of cancer because humans weren't meant to consume cows milk. Nations that consume little to no dairy have little to no reports of breast cancer in particular. Partly this has to do with the fact that cows milk and the sugars and fats associated with it create high acidity levels in the body and anerobic environments in the human biology which allows cancer cells to thrive. Now this doesn't mean I am anti milk I love to eat good cheeses but I do believe that the ingredient labels should be in place to let people know that there is dairy in certain foods and not in others because I understand why people would like to avoid dairy, cancer sucks.
Here is a recent article to how that I am not pulling this out of my rear end:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/...ancer.html
There are more articles out there if you care to do research. Remember when cigarettes didn't have labels and airplanes had smoking sections? The debates probably sounded similar to the GMO debate.
|
