Maui GMO protest

[Guest]

"The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products"

Dr. Alejandro Hunger

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delta9r

quote:

---

Originally posted by OpenD

... because there is no such thing as GMO black beans...

---

Look who's making things up as part of their argument...

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/....bean.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_turtle_bean

Apparently there actually are such things as GMO black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and they've been tested here in the US as well as in other nations.

---

Sorry, your reference actually proves what I meant, in the context of the poster buying a can on black beans, that there is no such thing as GMO black beans on the market. They are neither available as seeds, nor commercially grown. You can't buy any, anywhere. I never intended my comment as an encyclopedic reference to all research anywhere. Sheesh!

Here's another illustration of what i was pointing at, which I believe is instructive... a friend in a large city on the east coast who has the "anti-GMO" bug recently breathlessly announced to all her friends that she had found a "natural" oatmeal at a little store across town that had no additives and no GMOs!! Ohmigard, it set off a feeding frenzy among like minded folk who wanted to know how to find the place, etc. The silly thing is that you can say exactly the same thing about Quaker Oats, which cost 1/4 as much, and are conveniently located in the nearest supermarket. The complete ingredient list on both are "whole grain oats 100%" and there are no GMO oats on the market.

I figure that between the upscale pricing on the product, and the expense of driving across town just to buy them, the "No GMO" label on the package cost her about 6-8x as much as the "non-hysterical response" kind.

[Guest]

^^thats not true. My mother in law has to order special oats (she makes and sells Energy and protein bars for gyms and stuff)

She was saying that something about the way the oats are REFINED.

I think Quaker Oats uses bleach or chlorine or something like white bread has. Either way, there is something that happens when refined that takes most of the nutritional value out.

[Derrick Barnicoat]

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/...9.oat.html

GM Oats do exist but they are not sold commercially yet, which is not really the issue. Labeling allows corporations to compete in the marketplace as opposed to cheat the marketplace and forcibly impose dominance until we have no choice anymore. When people can choose we will be able to really say whether GM ingredients are profitable or not and whether they are harmful or not. Until then they are just using a loophole while they still can. It is inevitable that there will be labeling but the longer we wait the more damage will be done to our farms and food. For instance, if humans are eating gm food and doing fine but we aren't noticing the bees are getting sick then we could risk losing many of our staple foods.

The other issue is that genetically modified crops are grown on the Hawaiian islands because they are islands, the most isolated islands available. In other words relatively speaking the pollen can be controlled by the ocean surrounding us and the corporations don't have to be as careful. It's the same reason the military has tested weapons and nukes on islands. The islands provide a controlled area in case contaminated pollen starts to spread something bad. That is why Hawaii has become a place to develop these seeds.

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneself

I still do not understand why people who make NO PROFIT (unless you DO ?) from GMO companies, defend these unethical companies ? Whats your motive man ?

---

I'm not defending unethical companies. I think Monsanto is evil too. I'm just clear that GMO does not equal Monsanto. There are thousands of different groups and organizations and companies doing genetic modification research around the world which have nothing at all to do with Monsanto. And many of those projects are addressing serious global issues like combating malaria and dengue fever, fighting starvation, curing cancer, improving crop yields, preventing death and blindness in children, and many other worthwhile goals.

It is the last case mentioned that gets me particularly upset with anti-science protesters, who have irrationally delayed the deployment of Vitamin A enhanced Golden Rice for many years. Developed by Swiss scientists as a non-profit humanitarian project, Golden Rice is designed to impact the half-million cases a year of blindness and death in children under the age of five in Asia, caused by insufficient levels of Vitamin A in their diets and the diets of their mothers. Previous attempts to provide artificially enriched foods, or vitamin A rich vegetables that are foreign to the region have failed. But Golden Rice, which is golden in color because it contains high levels of beta-carotene has proven to have high acceptance with poor people in remote areas, because the color implies richness to them.

But approval for widespread deployment has been held up for years... and remember, each additional year means another half million kids afflicted... due to irrational concerns which don't hold up under investigation.

Oneself: "People want to know what they are eating, let them ! What the fudge is the big deal ?"

One big deal is Freedom of Speech, which is one of the main reasons we do a lot of things in the US differently from the rest of the world. Neither people nor companies can be prevented by the government from saying what they wish to say, nor compelled to say what they don't want to say. That's Civics 101 stuff. Where the government can show a compelling public interest in creating an exception, such as FDA labeling, it's done for reasons based on solid scientific evidence. There are no such reasons in regard to GMOs.

As the court ruling that overturned the previous mandatory GM labeling law in Vermont explained (paraphrased) - People might also want to know what the cows had for breakfast, or what their names are, but there is no compelling public interest in forcing the producers to answer. That would be a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech, and would be detrimental to their business interests, because the label has been so demonized by advocates that the public would avoid it.

Get it? There is no credible scientific proof of danger from GMOs, but the term is now thoroughly demonized, and irrationally tainted, so it's become highly prejudicial. The time to have possibly gotten such labeling approved, if any, was years ago, before the public had any clear opinions on the topic.

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneself
She was saying that something about the way the oats are REFINED. I think Quaker Oats uses bleach or chlorine or something like white bread has. Either way, there is something that happens when refined that takes most of the nutritional value out.

---

Oy, more vague and unsupported demonization to pollute the conversation! In fact regular oatmeal is an unrefined product. "Whole oats" means whole oats. Only the hulls are removed.

And besides being unrefined, it is minimally processed. "Steel-cut" is chopped up so it cooks quicker. The other kind is soaked in water and then flattened between heated rollers so it cooks quicker. That's it.

[OpenD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Derrick Barnicoat
For instance, if humans are eating gm food and doing fine but we aren't noticing the bees are getting sick then we could risk losing many of our staple foods.

---

Agreed, but it doesn't appear the bees are getting sick because of GMOs. What has been seen is that nicotinoid pesticides affect them, and that hive collapse is caused by two competing viruses hitting them at the same time.

Derrick Barnicoat - The other issue is that genetically modified crops are grown on the Hawaiian islands because they are islands, the most isolated islands available. ... That is why Hawaii has become a place to develop these seeds.[/quote]

This is a good example of what I call a plausible fairy tale, the kind the anti-GMO activists seize on and spread around and then people pick up and circulate without anyone ever fact checking them.

From industry reports, I conclude that for the most part the development of GMO varieties is done in other regions, then when a variety is OKd for marketing, the seeds from research are sent to Hawai'i to be grown out into salable quantities. And chief among the reasons for doing that is that the tropical climate in Hawai'i allows for three or more harvests of seed stock per year.

[Delta9r]

OpenD, your initial statement was not made in the spirit of encyclopedic knowledge, it was an attempt to marginalize someone who holds a divergent viewpoint from your own.
Had you actually meant "... GMO black beans on the market..." I'm fairly sure that your initial statement would have contained your new qualifier.
That is right in line with your "plausible fairy tale" statement, which is yet another attempt at marginalization of someone who doesn't share your love for big agribusiness.

As for big agribusiness taking advantage of our year round growing season, they could do the same elsewhere by utilizing indoor/greenhouse techniques, but doing so would probably be more costly, and since corporations only have their own shareholder's best interests at heart the corporate vampires almost always choose the cheapest route, often at the expense of the people who live in the areas in question.

The facts remain; the GMO crops being cultivated here in the state are nearly always monoculture crops, heavily sprayed with chemicals, and are of little benefit to our local population.

I, for one, don't like it, and I am far from being alone in my dislike.

"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."

[opihikao]

[/quote]Originally posted by Obie -
So what do you think about people flying to Hawaii to protest about local county issues ?

Who is paying them ??[/quote]
__________________________________________________

FYI: 4/28/14 - Civil Beat Article (*Snipped - More at link)

The fervor surrounding genetically engineered crops in Hawaii is expected to spill into this year's elections, as a number of candidates have already begun framing their campaigns around an anti-GMO sentiment.

It's also anticipated to lead to increased spending on particular races that will pit opponents of genetically modified organisms against those who believe that large agribusiness and chemical companies, such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF, are a boon to the local economy and global food production research.

Those companies, of course, grow genetically altered seed crops on many of Hawaii’s islands, and have a $250-million-a-year stake in making sure their business interests are protected.

But while the biotech firms, and in particular Monsanto, have long been financial players in local politics, the anti-GMO movement is ramping up its own firepower.

On the anti-GMO side, the Center for Food Safety, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that has been battling industrial agricultural practices since the 1990s, just opened a new office in Honolulu.

The group has already registered a political action committee with the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission to help elect like-minded politicians to state and local office.

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2014/0...s-heat-up/

[Delta9r]

I'll say it again...
The ragtag bunch of anti GMO protesters in Maui don't appear to have any big money backing them.

Look at the facts.

Homemade cardboard signs.
Two bullhorns!
A few websites, none of which cost more than $10 or $20 each.
...

The pro GMO crowd loves to use the "not from here" argument as proof that their beloved corporate entities are being unfairly attacked, yet they fail to acknowledge the fact that the aforementioned corporate entities are also "not from here."

"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."