Posts: 450
Threads: 128
Joined: Jul 2007
FYI, Joy SanBuenaventura, candidate for State House District 4, has been endorsed by the Hawaii Island chapter of the Sierra Club. Earlier, the Patsy Mink Political Action Committee (PAC) endorsed her candidacy as well.
For those who would like a chance to talk issues or just get to know the candidate, please come to a coffee hour-type event from 2 to 4 p.m. Saturday, June 28 at the Nanawale Longhouse (turn right at the 4-way stop on Nanawale Blvd and the longhouse will be on your immediate left). There will be plenty parking, a playground for the keiki and refreshments. Please come!
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
Astonishing to me that GMO Joy has managed to bamboozle the local chapter of the Sierra Club into what I can only hope was a naive choice. The incumbent or Leilani Bronson-Crelly are both better on the environment than GMO Joy. Faye is on record as being firmly in the anti-GMO camp, and Bronson-Crelly has declared herself loud and clear as anti-GMO, and has worked tirelessly on Maui to preserve the coastlines and near shore waters. Okay, so Joy put up a few solar panels and she composts. Great. So where does that leave the rest of us next year when she votes against a labeling law? #SierraClubFail
Posts: 968
Threads: 74
Joined: Aug 2007
quote:
Originally posted by DaVinci
So where does that leave the rest of us next year when she votes against a labeling law?
Hey DaVinci! On her website ( http://joy4puna.com/issues.html) Joy says: "I would also push for the monitoring and labeling of all GMO and non-GMO products so that consumers are fully informed." which sounds like she's for.. as in would vote for.. any reasonable labeling law. By any chance do you know something we don't on this? i.e. got the scoop? Some deep dark secret you dug up? Or maybe you just got one of them gut feelings?
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
quote:
Originally posted by dakine
quote:
Originally posted by DaVinci
So where does that leave the rest of us next year when she votes against a labeling law?
Hey DaVinci! On her website (http://joy4puna.com/issues.html) Joy says: "I would also push for the monitoring and labeling of all GMO and non-GMO products so that consumers are fully informed." which sounds like she's for.. as in would vote for.. any reasonable labeling law. By any chance do you know something we don't on this? i.e. got the scoop? Some deep dark secret you dug up? Or maybe you just got one of them gut feelings?
Let's review. "...push for the monitoring and labeling of all GMO and non-GMO products...” What do you think that means? Sounds fair and balanced, right? Except that "non-GMO products" are known by another name... food. Natural food products that have existed for 10,000 years. And producers of good old organic food are being forced to label right now, to distinguish their natural product from the genetically modified product that threatens the entire ecosystem wherever it is introduced. Natural selection forces any adaptation to prove itself advantageous over other competing adaptations. Genetic modification is a decision by a human being to alter the DNA of an organism to increase yield or shelf life, often with profit as a motivator, but without adequate testing to ensure it is not harmful when consumed by other humans. Natural selection is slow, which allows other organisms time to adapt to any potential mutation. Genetic modification is instantaneous, and humans therefore have no chance to adapt to any unforeseen consequences of the genetically modified foodstuff. To declare support for the labeling of both GMO and non-GMO products is to declare support for the status quo. And then you go on to characterize her position as being in favor of any "reasonable" labeling law. Which is to suggest that a labeling law that demands a label only on GMO products as somehow being inherently unfair. I would suggest that the products that have been safely consumed by humankind for 10,000 years don't need a label. And only those products that look and taste exactly like the originals, but may in fact be far more dangerous, need to be labeled. That is, in my opinion, a reasonable labeling law. It is a shame that GMO Joy doesn't agree. It is a shame that you also seem not to agree. GMO safety is NOT settled science, like natural selection, climate change, cosmic expansion, or general relativity. And as such, it should continue to endure the scrutiny of rigorous, independent testing and the transparency of clear labeling. To suggest that the playing field is only fair if the two sides are treated equally is to suggest that climate change scientists should be forced to debate with creationists on an equal footing and given equal time. An absurd proposal. Joy's position is consistent with her unstated desire to defend the status quo and allow Monsanto to corrupt the ecology of this island.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Genetic modification is a natural process we as humans have observed in nature - agrobacterium tumefacien to be specifuc. We have used these observations to develop our own modification techniques. Science is constantly changing - evolving. No fields are understood completely your "settled-science" is a misnomer. Some of our most basic assumptions/foundations like gravity (classical mechanics / newtonian physics) are being called into question by new discoveries.
Your understanding of both genetic modification and science in general appears to be lacking. It is clear you have less than a laymans understanding on the subject and are holding misconceptions that disable your ability to enable yourself to study the science and learn the truth for yourself rather than parroting one side or anothers position,
I am curious about your motivations and your vendetta against this particular candidate.
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
My positions on what is "settled science" come from Neil deGrasse Tyson. I am admittedly a layman. He is not. The Scientific Method requires Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment and then Analysis. And yes, even widely accepted concepts, theorems, laws are and should be subject to new prediction and experiment. Newton's Second Law starts to fall apart at near-light speeds, so we need Einstein's General Relativity. And that breaks down at quantum scales, so we begin to rely on the Standard Model. Yes, Science is constantly changing. But there are limits. We don't allow Creationists to call themselves scientists because Darwin's theories have been verified experimentally to such an overwhelmingly unimaginable degree that no scientist anywhere is formulating new predictions that begin with the notion that Darwin was just flat out wrong. So that becomes something called "settled science." No scientist working today is trying to disprove Edwin Hubble's notion that all galaxies are moving away from one another. That is fairly settled as well.
To suggest however, that genetic modification--modern gene splicing-- is somehow natural is a straw man argument. Genetic mutation is natural. Yes. Darwin's Natural Selection would not work without it. But Natural Selection is slow, and genetic mutations are random. And that is the foundation of my criticism of modern GMO products. The genetic change is not slow. It is not random. It is a decision by a human being that the change will provide a benefit. And that might not be true. And every product released into the wild without scrupulous testing has the potential to do harm. I am opposed to that.
If Joy had come out strongly and unequivocally in favor of GMO labeling, and increased GMO testing, and fighting to keep the Federal government from imposing its will upon us, I would have considered her candidacy. But she did not.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
I'll admit that I'm not fanatical in either direction with respect to GMOs. However, I'm concerned about using GMOs as a litmus test for any candidate because it's an issue that, in reality, is outside the reasonable jurisdiction of either the state legislature or county council. If GMO labeling is mandated at either county or state level, major food producers will either ignore the ban, tie it up in court appeals, or stop shipping their products to the Islands. They are not going to undertake the expense required by these proposed broad brush laws to serve the relatively small market in the Islands. (Massive expense includes establishing processes to insure none of their ingredients are GMO, on-going cost of monitoring compliance with the policy, redesign of packaging etc.). GMO advocacy needs to addressed at the federal level, so that a nationwide standard can be developed and enforced.
From what I've seen of candidates at both the state and county level, most are ready to jump on whichever bandwagon (GMO or non-GMO) seems to have the loudest -- not necessarily most scientifically informed -- voices at the moment.
Posts: 195
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2014
DaVinci is correct on all points. This well-spoken candidate snookered the Sierra Club and is trying to play both sides. She opposes our County's GMO restrictions, correct? Also, "Let the Feds handle it" when Monsanto controls the FDA? Why do you think this is being fought locally anyway?
When someone (like this candidate) says why don't we label non-GMO products as the solution, and fails to note the absurdity of that position, that's the GMO party line.
An analogy. Poisons are clearly labeled in the garden store. Let's take those labels off, and require everything not poisonous to be labeled instead. Same logic. Or, let's register every resident who is not a sex offender, then we won't need those pesky sex-offender registries. After all, they must cost the offender money and inconvenience!
Rainyjim- GMO is nothing like natural mutations, nothing at all.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
I never said natural mutations, Da Vinci said that - read for comprehension.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens (look this up)
Modern transgenics developed from observation of a bacteria which naturally developed to transfer some of its DNA into the DNA of its host (usually Eudicots) this transfer of DNA was observed by scientists and led to the understanding of transgenics or GMOs.
You are ignorant of science.
----
I agree KeaauRich it should not be used as a measuring stick as it is a moot point. However, I believe that in itself justifies the question and it's response sure tells us a lot.
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
@KeaauRich, Vermont and Maine have both passed labeling laws. Twenty five other states are actively taking up legislation to require labeling. Like any struggle where the consensus shifts slowly, and the federal government is determined to stand firmly for the status quo, the state actions are an important part of the political process. We get the attention of the Feds by making our voices heard, collectively. So it's not a fool's errand to fight for this here in Hawaii in the House and Senate. Marriage equality would not have made any gains without state initiatives. Marijuana decriminalization also is being fought state by state, and ignored at the federal level.
|
