06-19-2014, 07:25 AM
quote:Confirmed: DNA From Genetically Modified Cropsto Can Be Transferred In
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."
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