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

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

James, this is a public forum so you'll have to put up with everyone's opinion, not just those who you consider to be credible.

There are many reasons for people not to use their full name. Some people think disagreement = attack and threaten violence or, even worse, legal action.

---

I see.
So, one should not take the discussion here so seriously.

[TomK]

Jeez, I have see this kind of stuff so many times over the years, it's so predictable I could probably even make a business out of it. So, just my observations:

From the GMO thread on Big Island Chronicle

http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2013/1...ent-354747

Someone (Obie) posts a link to http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25...activists/ which is full of references to peer reviewed scientific papers. That gets ignored. Then there's a lot of stuff about corporations and companies while the science is ignored, perhaps because it's inconvenient. Wait a few days and then there's another request for scientific data - perhaps people have now forgotten what was posted earlier.

In response to another request from the anti-GMO folk, Obie points out he's already posted a link to studies but provides another one:

http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/pamela...d-gmo-food

which of course gets ignored because it doesn't support the anti-GMO folk's position. But, in the meantime, in an attempt to distract people from the facts of the argument, suddenly people's screenames are being called into question despite what points they make while other shill anti-GMO people make childish fun of people's real names in the BIC thread.

Yep, seen it all before.

Edited for a typo.

[TomK]

James,

Because you're late to this thread while moaning about people's screennames, this article includes a link to over a thousand scientific articles about GMOs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/20...stainable/

You asked for ten in the BIC thread, and when provided with them you ignored them. Now you have more. You've done research in the past, you have a PhD which you made a point informing everyone about, so suspect this will be a breeze for you to answer and rebut.

[Obie]

I use the name "Obie" because that is what everyone,with the exception of my mother who calls me Larry and my grandkids who call me Papa ,knows me by.

Even the OP,Aaron knows me by the name Obie.

[james weatherford]

Thanks, TomK.
As I said at that other blog, I have been reading from the list.
And, as I said there, an overwhelming number of the citations deal with animal performance (growth, weight gain, feed conversion, etc) rather than with the safety for humans. One that I quoted at that other blog did go further and found BtDNA fragments in some places in the animals and not others and said that was "probably not a concern" -- not at all a strong finding.
What is needed is long-term studies on human health.

[kalakoa]

Human health is irrelevant now that we have the ACA: the corps can now profit on both sides, selling you poison, then offering a cure.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by james weatherford

What is needed is long-term studies on human health.

---

James, that's a very clever "blind": in your opinion, how long are such studies needed? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? And who is going to pay for or do that research? Has any other food, or drug, or medical device ever been subjected to such testing? Sounds to me like a prescription for stasis.

Also sounds a bit smug and indifferent to those less advantaged than you: "dying from a rare disease - too bad, we gotta spend the next 50 years testing this new drug"; "can't afford to eat? going blind from a vitamin A deficiency? Tough, suck it up... we'll get back to you after we've made sure it's "safe"."

[james weatherford]

the golden rice that was supposed to help with vitamin A has been a flop. no traction there.

starvation? gmo has not kept anyone from starving and there is nothing about it that would be expected to. again, red herring.

how long? long enough to confirm that it is safe which has not happened.

[james weatherford]

...and there is this

"Number of scientists who say GMOs not proven safe climbs to 230
Developer of first commercialised GM food says debate isn’t over."

http://www.ensser.org/media/0613/

[kalakoa]

I've concluded that it simply does not matter.

The "possible" (read: likely) long-term effects are just that: long term.

Pick a number you like: 20, 50, or 100 years. By then, one of three outcomes:

1. GMO is totally safe and everyone got worked up about nothing;

2. GMO wasn't totally safe, but science advanced far enough to solve the problem;

3. GMO was a horrible nightmare and humans are extinct.

BUT, until then, you're guaranteed to waste your time, energy, and/or money arguing about whether GMO is safe, does the County have authority to regulate it, how much will the lawsuits cost to decide these various issues, etc. No matter which side you're on, you're getting all worked up over it... I'm done with that $#!+.