03-02-2015, 05:54 PM
kalakoa - California has a large enough tax base to fund lengthy legal battles.
It can also be a tactic to fling lawsuits back and forth to see who runs out of money first.
In its 30 years history, California's Prop 65 has been challenged 12 times I believe, and has been upheld each time because the federal government is not regulating the same areas of interstate commerce.
Vermont has passed Act 120 requiring, with some exceptions, GMO food labeling by July 2016 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association has filed suit based on constitutionality and free speech arguments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...t-gmo-law/
Obie - DOH: [we] do not possess the requisite scientific expertise, capacity, equipment and experience
SB 131 does not require the DOH to perform any analysis, only to set the "rules for the testing of foods." $1000 per violation could help fund the efforts and this work could be outsourced to a experienced lab or better yet partnered with the University. Probably enough of us current and former pipette monkeys around to help figure out how to accomplish this.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_in...illtype=SB&billnumber=131&year=2015
(Has passed second reading unamended)
rainyjim - Here is a study from Cornell University that illustrates my explanation of increased costs in significantly greater detail.
FWIW, I read through this and found it odd in many ways mentioned in the links PunaMauka2 provided (a little too late for me
. Beyond the small costs of actually labeling, they try to factor in several possible outcomes such as:
- additional warehouse space needed if manufacturers choose to offer a GM and non-GM variety
- costs to the consumer should they choose to switch to all non-GM or organic foods
- possible losses to farmers who grow GMO crops, as if their stock could only end up in products for NY, and had zero value on the domestic or international market.
- etc...
I'm willing to discuss in more depth if you like - appreciate the link!
PunaMauka2 - debate over an ever-expanding wilderness of details... i guess the thought alone made me vicariously exhausted from the get go.
Amen to that brother! I think it is safe to say that the science is not settled and that many states and countries are tackling this to varying degrees. Hawaii will no doubt have its part to play.
I just wanted to state my appreciation to everyone for the very civil and insightful discussion thus far. I've learned several new things, and even though we might not agree, we've managed generally to not resort to various debate tactics (ad hominems, name calling, straw-mans, etc) like other participants in some scientific "discussions" here on PW - you know who you are
It can also be a tactic to fling lawsuits back and forth to see who runs out of money first.
In its 30 years history, California's Prop 65 has been challenged 12 times I believe, and has been upheld each time because the federal government is not regulating the same areas of interstate commerce.
Vermont has passed Act 120 requiring, with some exceptions, GMO food labeling by July 2016 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association has filed suit based on constitutionality and free speech arguments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...t-gmo-law/
Obie - DOH: [we] do not possess the requisite scientific expertise, capacity, equipment and experience
SB 131 does not require the DOH to perform any analysis, only to set the "rules for the testing of foods." $1000 per violation could help fund the efforts and this work could be outsourced to a experienced lab or better yet partnered with the University. Probably enough of us current and former pipette monkeys around to help figure out how to accomplish this.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_in...illtype=SB&billnumber=131&year=2015
(Has passed second reading unamended)
rainyjim - Here is a study from Cornell University that illustrates my explanation of increased costs in significantly greater detail.
FWIW, I read through this and found it odd in many ways mentioned in the links PunaMauka2 provided (a little too late for me
. Beyond the small costs of actually labeling, they try to factor in several possible outcomes such as:- additional warehouse space needed if manufacturers choose to offer a GM and non-GM variety
- costs to the consumer should they choose to switch to all non-GM or organic foods
- possible losses to farmers who grow GMO crops, as if their stock could only end up in products for NY, and had zero value on the domestic or international market.
- etc...
I'm willing to discuss in more depth if you like - appreciate the link!
PunaMauka2 - debate over an ever-expanding wilderness of details... i guess the thought alone made me vicariously exhausted from the get go.
Amen to that brother! I think it is safe to say that the science is not settled and that many states and countries are tackling this to varying degrees. Hawaii will no doubt have its part to play.
I just wanted to state my appreciation to everyone for the very civil and insightful discussion thus far. I've learned several new things, and even though we might not agree, we've managed generally to not resort to various debate tactics (ad hominems, name calling, straw-mans, etc) like other participants in some scientific "discussions" here on PW - you know who you are