Hawaii Senate panel to consider GMO labeling

[PunaMauka2]

why does it not shock me that a government agency would formally discourage their taking on responsibility for a new task?

anyway...

rainyjim, i wouldn't be all that surprised if we ended up agreeing on some points more than you or i might initially expect. i just wanted to comment on what i saw was looking like some insufficient reasoning on the side of discouraging GMO labeling without getting sucked into a drawn out exchange of data source jousting. my latest point being that it can become a tactic to heave opposing hefty published studies back and forth to see who has the most endurance to keep plowing through them and respond in kind with parry, leading into debate over an ever-expanding wilderness of details. not necessarily saying that was your conscious intention ...rather i guess the thought alone made me vicariously exhausted from the get go.

by the way, definitely agree that it is important to look at the quality of sources, but then also be willing to look for similarly qualified sources which may or may not be in alignment. wouldn't want to start cherry picking.

[kalakoa]

it can become a tactic to heave opposing hefty published studies back and forth to see who has the most endurance

It can also be a tactic to fling lawsuits back and forth to see who runs out of money first.

[ironyak]

kalakoa - California has a large enough tax base to fund lengthy legal battles.
It can also be a tactic to fling lawsuits back and forth to see who runs out of money first.

In its 30 years history, California's Prop 65 has been challenged 12 times I believe, and has been upheld each time because the federal government is not regulating the same areas of interstate commerce.

Vermont has passed Act 120 requiring, with some exceptions, GMO food labeling by July 2016 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association has filed suit based on constitutionality and free speech arguments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...t-gmo-law/

Obie - DOH: [we] do not possess the requisite scientific expertise, capacity, equipment and experience

SB 131 does not require the DOH to perform any analysis, only to set the "rules for the testing of foods." $1000 per violation could help fund the efforts and this work could be outsourced to a experienced lab or better yet partnered with the University. Probably enough of us current and former pipette monkeys around to help figure out how to accomplish this.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_in...illtype=SB&billnumber=131&year=2015
(Has passed second reading unamended)

rainyjim - Here is a study from Cornell University that illustrates my explanation of increased costs in significantly greater detail.

FWIW, I read through this and found it odd in many ways mentioned in the links PunaMauka2 provided (a little too late for me . Beyond the small costs of actually labeling, they try to factor in several possible outcomes such as:
- additional warehouse space needed if manufacturers choose to offer a GM and non-GM variety
- costs to the consumer should they choose to switch to all non-GM or organic foods
- possible losses to farmers who grow GMO crops, as if their stock could only end up in products for NY, and had zero value on the domestic or international market.
- etc...

I'm willing to discuss in more depth if you like - appreciate the link!

PunaMauka2 - debate over an ever-expanding wilderness of details... i guess the thought alone made me vicariously exhausted from the get go.

Amen to that brother! I think it is safe to say that the science is not settled and that many states and countries are tackling this to varying degrees. Hawaii will no doubt have its part to play.


I just wanted to state my appreciation to everyone for the very civil and insightful discussion thus far. I've learned several new things, and even though we might not agree, we've managed generally to not resort to various debate tactics (ad hominems, name calling, straw-mans, etc) like other participants in some scientific "discussions" here on PW - you know who you are

[kalakoa]

California's Prop 65 has been challenged 12 times I believe, and has been upheld each time because the federal government is not regulating the same areas of interstate commerce.

For some reason this sounds like "selective enforcement".

[rainyjim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak
Probably enough of us current and former pipette monkeys around to help figure out how to accomplish this.

---

I prefer 'gene jock'.

[ironyak]

Even gene jocks need a team of pipette monkeys - ABI hasn't automated everything yet (although they do have some neat toys to play with

Any thoughts on the NY labeling doc? I noticed it was quoted several times in testimony for SB 131. The Seralini study was also cut and pasted in its entirety. Wonder if legislators bother to read any of this, or actually understand what is being said...

[Obie]

The anti gmo warriors copied and pasted so much garbage into the comments that it took 20 minutes for the pdf to open.

Prop65 is a poor example of labeling because it is a total failure.Go to ACE or Home Depot and see if you can find anything on the shelf that doesn't have a Prop65 warning.If you can find anything without the warning it probably won't work for its intended purpose.

When you get off an airplane in California there is a Prop65 label that states that something in the area may cause cancer.I guess we all need to stay out of California !

[Wao nahele wahine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obie

The anti gmo warriors copied and pasted so much garbage into the comments that it took 20 minutes for the pdf to open.

---

Obie, this is for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwwY9y6O3hw

Wahine

[PunaMauka2]

quote: Originally posted by Obie

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ".

--------------------

bait alert

[kalakoa]

Go to ACE or Home Depot and see if you can find anything on the shelf that doesn't have a Prop65 warning.

This is simple market forces at work. Manufacturers want to sell their product in all 50 states, so they comply with all labeling requirements.

When California had stricter emissions requirements than the rest of the US (another lengthy court battle, there) the automakers actually created two versions of every car, one "CA-emissions" and one "49-state". Because the required equipment was expensive, it was worth bothering with a separate model; adding the Prop65 warning to a label is effectively free.