Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
http://gmofreehawaiiisland.blogspot.com/...e2014.html
She supports a strong labeling effort, to join states like Vermont and Maine. She supports Home Rule, specifically Hawaii County Bill 113. And she is not "anti-science" as demonstrated by her civil beat positions questionnaire:
http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/07/candida...on-crelly/
Specifically, question 4. She responds: "The dangers of genetically engineered foods depend upon the genetic change being made. Crossing two kinds of apples to make a new apple isn’t harmful at all, but adding the DNA of a bacteria into a food we actually consume immediately raises a flag."
This candidate could actually chart a sane, responsible course for us. She won't build walls around Puna to keep advances in science and modern living at arm's length, but she also won't be bought or bullied by the likes of Monsanto, DuPont, etc.
Posts: 798
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2005
Sounds like another anti-science person to me. Using the term "the dangers" when so far there aren't any from any of the GM approved crops raises a flag for me. Glad I didn't vote for her. I don't like using the technology of coal burning, which has clear and major environmental effects. I demand that all food produced using coal power have a coal label on it. Using coal technology is far more destructive than using GMO technology and there is no reasonable argument to claim otherwise. Seriously, if any of these GMO "activists" cared about sustainable food production or the environment, they would demand coal labels on all products produced using coal. You can come up with hundreds of things more concerning than using GM technology that could argue for a label.
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
I like red,so I want a label on my food that the farmer only used International Harvester tractors in his (or her) fields !!
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
That was an odd reductio ad absurdum, Rob. I'm wondering now what foods are in fact produced by burning coal? I'm no farmer, so maybe a lot of 'em... school me on that, okay? But it doesn't matter, because I'm with you on the coal burning thing. Label all that dirty coal food! Who doesn't want that? And isn't that the essence of the labeling argument: it would be silly to label all food that DOESN'T use coal in its production, right? That would be, wow, a lot of labels... no, the burden should be on the food producer that is causing harm... (wait, don't jump yet, we're still talking about coal)... so the coal-using food producers should have to label, yes? Now I realize that you would disagree with the assertion that any GMO foods have ever or will ever cause harm. I get that. I truly do. But the point here is that all of those GMO "activists" of Puna are worried that some might. Some. Might.
By the way, the term "the dangers" was built into the question, so that's on Civil Beat. Clever, trying to pin that one on Leilani, though. You almost got that one through...
Leilani goes on to say, "Many of the residents in Puna prefer organically grown food, for themselves and for their children. To tell them that they are not allowed to know which products are made with GMO ingredients and which are not is unreasonable and untenable."
That is a candidate that respects the views of many of her fellow residents. Her reasons aren't about science. They are about people. But I get it. Your views are different, and you are not alone. And I'm glad you didn't have to vote for her, but I think you're selling her a bit short. She is clearly not opposed to all GMO. She is opposed to agribusiness abuses that affect the lives of the people living in her district. She is opposed to the state trying to take away Home Rule. Labeling laws are designed to empower the citizenry by giving them a choice. Why are the needs of citizens less valid that the profits of agribusiness? Why MUST all people just take Monsanto's word for it? Take your word for it? Rob says its safe, so I'm NOT ALLOWED to know whether this soybean is modified or not. Rob is a scientist, and I'm just an "activist," so I'm supposed to just shut up and eat my beans...
Science is great Rob. I love Science. But sometimes scientists can be a little arrogant.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"I have always said that to demand GMO labels on food containing GMO ingredients is our right, as citizens of the state of Hawai’i, and we must exercise that right."
If it's a "right" then why is there any discussion?
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
When reading the statement with a comprehension level exercised above that of a drunken sailor, we see the right is in the action of demanding. Interesting eh?
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
This makes my choice easier, and it won't be Bronson-Crelly. GMO has never, not once, been proven to be harmful to humans. It may be one of just a few hopes of feeding a hungry world in the face of global warming. Why is it that the anti-GMO crowd wants to listen to science when it's warming, but not when GMO. Illogical.
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Chunkster,
I believe the reason is that the anti GMO crowd confuses the science of GMO with the business model of Monsanto. They can't find or think of a way to attack the business model, which they dislike, so they attack the science. It is a jumble of misapplied logic. On this tact the council used the science to create a business solution. Whacky.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Rob@12:13:01
My sentiments and thoughts too.
I've mentioned that maybe a couple of times in the past on this site.
Posts: 195
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2014
You guys must be correct, cause you keep saying the same thing over and over, which makes it true. All those concerned about GMO are anti-science, and the 60 modern nations that ban or require labeling of GMOs based on international scientific studies are suffering from a mass delusion, while the PW GMO crowd know the real scoop.
