- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 2, 2013 at 1:14 am #789085
JanSParticipantVBD…I have said from the beginning that I am for labelling. Many people that are for labelling are not anti-GMO. Those are two different things, frankly. I’m sure you can see that I-522, in my book , is about if we label or not, not if we outlaw GMO’s. Why is that confusing? We just want to make the choice to buy or not…and labelling gives us that choice.
Yeah…what TanDL said..
The article is fine as it is…it is not relevent (IMHO) to I-522, which is about LABELLING.
November 2, 2013 at 1:17 am #789086
VBDParticipantFor once, I’m speechless.
November 2, 2013 at 3:10 am #789087
JanSParticipantVBD…we all have opinions about this, none are less than the others, so why do you discount everyone’s but yours.I have a particular reason for feeling this way. To each his own. You’re not going to affect the way I feel about this 4 days before the election. You vote however you feel.
November 2, 2013 at 3:26 am #789088
JanSParticipantand, for the record, VBD….from the official ballot measure summary “This measure would require foods produced entirely or partly with genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale in Washington, beginning in July 2015. The labeling requirement would apply generally to raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stock, with some exceptions, but would not require that specific genetically-engineered ingredients be identified. The measure would authorize state enforcement and civil penalties, and allow private enforcement actions.”
It’s about labeling…
November 2, 2013 at 3:28 am #789089
VBDParticipantJanS, I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I discount your opinion. I don’t. My point was that I agree with you on most of what you are saying.
To be clear; I’m in favor of good labeling that provides usable information. My assertion all along was that I-522 does not provide useful information.
I simply did not understand how your post #154 related to the article I linked, but it’s really no big deal.
Never have I tried to personally attack anyone.
Again if it came off that way, I apologize.
November 2, 2013 at 3:36 am #789090
JanSParticipantwhat I was taking exception to are the terms pro-GMO and anti-GMO, when I-522 is not about that. It’s about labeling. The contention is whether the labeling would do any good or not. I would rather have labeling until it’s proven absolutely that the GE of all things cannot produce any problems. And I expect this law, if it passes, to be changed in the future, as more information is gathered.
November 2, 2013 at 8:07 am #789091
westseamikeMemberI just want to know what Whole Foods and PCC will do when they can’t sell any Rainier Cherries after i-522 takes effect. Mmmmm, delicious GE Rainier Cherries brought to you by the fine folks at WSU many decades ago. GO COUGS!
November 2, 2013 at 8:55 am #789092
JanSParticipantwho said they could no longer sell them?
November 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm #789093
JoBParticipantwestseamike..
from Wikipedia…
“The standard root stock for the Rainier cherry is the Mazzard cherry, a wild or seedling sweet cherry used as grafting stock.”
The Rainier Cherry is not a Genetically Modified Organism… though it is possible to produce genetically modified Rainier Cherries.
again from wikipedia
“A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods, and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, ‘living modified organism’ defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, “any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology”).”
I can’t speak for Whole Foods because they blur too many lines to make me comfortable
but you can be assured that the Rainier Cherries you purchase at PCC are not GMO.
The apparent confusion over what constitutes GMO and the fact that the labeling standard proposed by I522 is far less than that required for the label Organic only reinforces how important this initiative is….
November 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm #789094
VBDParticipantTo make it even more interesting JoB, I-522 does not use the term “genetically modified organism” or “GMO” anywhere in the text of the initiative or on the ballot.
November 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm #789095
JoBParticipantVBD..
you keep plugging away…
if I522 passes, you can be sure that food producers are going to have a real stake in educating us all about exactly what all of those terms mean…
and why they are or aren’t important to us.
I, for one, am looking forward to the unintended consequences..
November 4, 2013 at 2:21 pm #789096
JoBParticipantfollow the money folks..
it has left a slimy trail..
a 7.2 million dollar slimy trail
http://www.storyleak.com/wash-state-lawsuit-reveals-corporations-laundered-money-fight-gmo-labeling/
thee’s even a handy dandy list of contributors so you know whose products you might want to avoid..
November 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm #789097
JoBParticipantand this…
FOX news actually aired a non-GMO report
will wonders never cease?
http://www.infowars.com/shock-fox-news-airs-bombshell-report-on-gmo-food/
in true FOX fashion, their links lead to two stories by two other news organizations who reference two studies… one done on a specific GMO corn products with rats.. and the other done on a specific GMO soy product and Hamsters…
but the got the essentials right..
the study they reported on wasn’t done on humans.. it was done on hamsters.. but the poor hamsters didn’t fare so well
in the same report they reference this
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1#.UCssmqmPXEU
93% of Americans think the governement should label GMO food products
it remains to be seen how effective the advertising in Washington has been
mind you.. they haven’t tried to change minds…
they simply labeled this labeling initiative ineffective and misleading.
it’s seldom that political advertising makes me smile.. but that’s ironic..
November 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm #789098
JanSParticipantFox News…ineffective and misleading…..HA !
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 pm #789099
VBDParticipantAt least Fox is consistent. They’re anti science on global warming, homosexuality, economics, and energy. Apparently they’re anti science on GE as well.
November 4, 2013 at 10:34 pm #789100
JoBParticipantVBD..
the more science that is produced on GMO/GE by independent sources … the less good it looks.
November 4, 2013 at 10:41 pm #789101
VBDParticipantThat, of course, is not true JoB. But regardless, we should label GE ingredients on packaging so people can judge for themselves what GE foods are acceptable to them.
November 5, 2013 at 1:01 am #789102
JoBParticipantVBD..
what i know is that when you control access to the product, you control the research.
November 5, 2013 at 1:41 am #789103
JanSParticipantso there I was, at Safeway, minding my own business, and I came across a product on the shelves. And in prominent letters on the front it said “No GMO ingredients used in this product.” And, from what I can recall about the product, the price did not go up. Hmmmm….
November 5, 2013 at 3:48 am #789104
VBDParticipantJoB, I agree with you. A good labeling law should include a testing requirement. I-522 does not.
November 5, 2013 at 3:53 am #789105
VBDParticipantJanS, that type of labeling is the best solution. It gave you information you could use, and it does not add cost. There is no added cost since the retailer did not have to do anything to put it on the shelf. And if the label is wrong, the store would not be held libel. MUCH better than I-522’s method.
November 5, 2013 at 4:07 am #789106
JanSParticipantso, VBD, you don’t have a problem with labeling….?
November 5, 2013 at 4:17 am #789107
JoBParticipantVBD..
at no time did i say that labeling should include a testing requirement…
my remark was in response to your assertion that i knew what i said about GMO research wasn’t true..
testing does add cost ..
which is why the requirements for the labels organic and GMO free add to the cost of the product.
as for the store being held for libel…
what rot!
All they have to have is a statement from the producer of the product on file..
and they don’t even have to have that on the premises..
i you read the entire initiative..
not just the out of context quotes referred to by the anti I522 crowd,
you would know that.
November 5, 2013 at 4:17 am #789108
VBDParticipantJanS, have you been reading my posts?!?
You might want to go back and start at the beginning of the thread…
November 5, 2013 at 4:32 am #789109
VBDParticipantI-522 makes selling unlabeled or un
documented food at retail a crime. I can’t say who is likely to be held responsible, but retailers are the ones who do the retail selling.
Again, my problem with I-522 isn’t the labeling. It’s that it’s so poorly conceived that it can’t possibly survive legal scrutiny. It will be overturned.
There is a LOT of money supporting the “no” side, and that money will also support a legal challenge. The only way to beat that challenge is to have a rock solid law. I-522 is way too flawed to survive.
JoB, I still pledge to buy you a drink if it actually survives. How about a nice glass of fresh apple cider?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.