06-19-2014, 04:20 AM
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."
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."