Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's

[jlgerk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

Paul do you really expect me to play with you anymore? You've been far too rude and condescending too many times. I'm sorry but we're through!

*changes the locks*

---

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlgerk

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

Paul do you really expect me to play with you anymore? You've been far too rude and condescending too many times. I'm sorry but we're through!

*changes the locks*

---

---

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

So you're advocating that we hide the truth? Because people have short attention spans? I still don't understand why you don't want us to label them? Why do we have to hide the truth?

---

I thought I made that clear - it's pointless, it allows manipulative individuals to unfairly vilify industries/manufacturers/farmers over completely irrelevant characteristics of their products, it adds substantial costs to the food supply chain for no possible benefit to the consumer, it supports public ignorance and manipulation by cynical, dishonest, and self-serving individuals,... is that enough or would you like more reasons?

present company excepted of course...

[rainyjim]

You are missing my point geochem. You listed all those things you have an issue with: "public ignorance and manipulation by cynical, dishonest, and self-serving individuals" so why not solve these 'real' problems instead of hiding the truth about what food is GMO, if there was nothing to hide, then why is it being kept secret? I don't want to lie about GMOs - on either side of the fence - it seems those opposing labeling do. Why support liars? I don't have a problem with the truth - apparently California did!

I recommend reading Michael Pollans stance on GMO labeling and the california bill / decision to get an idea of what elements affected that outcome - for anyone who cares about GMO labeling either way.

[PaulW]

<Michael Pollan is an American author, journalist, activist, and professor of journalism at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. A 2006 New York Times book review describes him as a "liberal foodie intellectual.">

Wow, you're bringing out the big guns here. What about science?

[PaulW]

"I still don't understand why you don't want us to label them?"

Let me try again.
I say: All food harvested on a Monday is evil and should be labeled as such. By law. All of it.
Do you agree with this law? What do these Monday-harvesters have to hide if they think it's not evil?

[OpenD]

Mandatory labeling of GMO foods would almost certainly be ruled invalid on constitutional grounds, as an intrusion on the food producers freedom of speech, just as it was the last time this issue hit the courts.

That was in Vermont, in the 90s, when the state required dairies to label milk from cows treated with rBGH hormones. The law was overturned in the courts because there was no compelling evidence that the hormone was unsafe, and the term had become so demonized that those milk producers would suffer economic loss, needlessly.

The court went on to say that there is no end of things the public might like to know about about the food they buy at one time or another, but unless there is a compelling, proven need to know for health or safety reasons, the government cannot force such labeling, and consumers are advised to seek foods which voluntarily advertise they are gluten-free or MSG-free or whatever else they to avoid.

Since there is no credible research showing that GMOs are unsafe, and since the term has been thoroughly demonized in the public's minds anyway, this previous decision shows why mandatory labeling is a non-starter.

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

Hello. The information you are stating is public knowledge. Not only are most posting on this thread already aware of what you've posted, but also the same information is literally already present on this forum in multiple topics.

---

Maybe so, but there has also been a lot of incorrect info posted, some of it right in this thread, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

quote:

---

Nevertheless I am confused at why you aim your comments at me or associate my quotes with your following 'passages'.

---

Nothing personal, I just keyed off your "Monsanto will own the patents" comment because I don't believe it is true, and I believe it's an unnecessary and prejudicial issue to inject into this local discussion. The rest was just a general reply to several other posters.

[Midnight Rambler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

As I remember it the GMO work for the Anti-Ringspot Papaya was developed and patented by the U.H. College of Tropical Agriculture.

---

The patent is actually owned by the USDA, since they provided the funding. It's licenced to UH and Cornell since they did the work. For the USDA to give the patent to Monsanto, as rainyjim "prophesied", would require overturning the most fundamental law of government research - anything done with public money is public.

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlgerk

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainyjim

Paul do you really expect me to play with you anymore? You've been far too rude and condescending too many times. I'm sorry but we're through!

*changes the locks*

---

---

---