Sen Ruderman, where is the proof

[Rob Tucker]

So what is your point? Caveat emptor?

[Haaheo okole puka]

Devoid impartial oversight... yes. Thus far, in these matters, there is no such practical control mechanism as the bureaucratic arm touted to provide such oversight is fully controlled by the political arm. Thus clearly ineffective and creating a false sense of security.

[Rob Tucker]

So you don't have a point?

[Haaheo okole puka]

There are several points and not all related to this topic alone. Within the limited topic of GM food, the FDA is not afforded the ability to effectively exercise one of its intended roles (the protection of consumers). Thus a call for labeling is merely a compromise in the matter, whereas impartial oversight would be the best solution.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Suffice it to say, this is clearly an issue within nearly every Bureaucratic arm today and why we have begun to see such autocratic behavior. What I find interesting is that such bureaucratic extensions have been fully placed under executive control. Whereas under the arm of the judicial branch a better insulation from political influence could be achieved while under the supervision and scrutiny of the judiciary. Such constructs are not excluded Constitutionally.

[VancouverIslander]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haaheo okole puka

PaulW,
Somewhat off topic but still within the concern of the ethics regarding the current "scientific consensus" (ideology) state of GM food.
Here we see the "scientific consensus" (ideology) of global warming called to the mat.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...long-life/

II A - Practice leads to being well regulated (in an ideal state, properly functioning) and armed citizens provide security of a free state - thus the already existing natural right to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed.

---

What you are seeing is a man nearing 90 years old complaining about ClimateGate - something that has been hashed out in both the press and the scientific community ad nauseum. He seems to think 'big money' is behind climate change research. It would seem to me to be quite the opposite, with big oil in particular, with their uncounted billions available to lobby for climate change research to be suppressed. Interestingly, the 'creation scientists' have a similar theory about evolution and the 6 billion year old world being a fraud perpetrated to discredit the bible. When you start thinking conspiracy theory, it's time for the tin foil hats to come out.

[Haaheo okole puka]

You're talking about a highly respected scientist. What he's complaining about is the apparent swing in the direction of the APS from being a scientific organization to a politically and financially motivated organization. I see no merit in your tin foil oriented rhetoric.

Furthermore you're correct about one thing but not in the manner you assumed. It is indeed the oil companies who are the driving force behind the climate change sciences. They caught you hook line and sinker. The modus behind the scare was to initiate carbon taxes of which the proceeds are to be distributed by the UN to alternative energy companies owned by big oil companies located in third world nations. Your buddy Al Gore was one case in point as exposed during congressional hearings back earlier this decade.
All taxes be they placed directly on business or consumer are all paid by consumers. Consumers are to pay for research by alternative energy companies owned by big oil in third world nations and the people will love and support the tax because it's for a great cause... the cause to stifle alternative energy development in third world nations to further the oil dependency in every nation as is possible.

[lavalava]

Talk about off topic boys. This was about GMOs in Hawaii County. I do not care for your geopolitics meets climate change rantings.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Then stop reading it and ranting about it.

[jerry]

Here is a link to an article from New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25...wQH6M74AX4

In brief, a strain of potatoes was developed using GMO technology that is resistant to Phytophthora infestans, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine.

Monsanto was not involved, Roundup was not involved, gene splicing between species was not involved. A potato resistant to the blight was used to GMO a new strain.

My question is: What is objectionable about this? The fact that it was done in a lab and not a field?

I understand both the pro and anti gmo arguments. I am baffled as to why anybody would be opposed to this.

Jerry