- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 5, 2013 at 5:22 am #789110
JanSParticipantHey, VBD…I was just making a point…no need to get snarky…I’ve been paying attention…trust me :(
actually, kinda hard to miss ’em…
November 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm #789111
JoBParticipantVBD..
i love apple cider.. i even know where to get great cider that won’t break the bank :)
i agree that this law is likely to be challenged if it passes…
fist it has to pass… and if it does.. in spite of the huge pile of money that has been thrown at defeating it.. that alone will send a strong message to the food industry…
in my not so humble opinion, that message has less to do with GMOs and far more to do with truth in advertising…
which with any luck will trickle down into a call for more .. not less.. regulation of our food industries.
there .. you see.. you would be tipping cider with a seditious revolutionary..
who just happens to come in a sweet old lady package.
November 6, 2013 at 1:09 am #789112
waynsterParticipantYou know I might of had some of that franken fish a a while back stood up and them fins came out good thing for cooking sherry and a match and a long fork fried em good…….I got to quit smoking my veggies….lmao….hope this passes….yummm warm hard cider on a cold day with a Cinnamon stir stick
November 6, 2013 at 1:13 am #789113
Genesee HillParticipantI voted yes. I am just really worried that Walmart will leave the state if this passes. ROFL
November 6, 2013 at 3:22 am #789114
JanSParticipantwaynster…that warm apple cider? put a shot of rum in it…yummmmm…
November 6, 2013 at 3:25 am #789115
JoBParticipanttoo much humor is so good for the soul
November 7, 2013 at 6:21 pm #789116
TanDLParticipantAnd here’s why it didn’t pass:
http://www.king5.com/news/politics/Initiative-522-exit-poll-230706351.html
The best fear that money can buy, brought to you by the major food and agricultural corporations.
November 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm #789117
blblParticipantSame argument tea partiers made about passing the ACA, just ignorant voters who don’t know what they’re doing. I read the initiative, not the ads. I have a BS degree in environmental science and I interpret laws for a living. I voted no. Science won.
November 7, 2013 at 9:51 pm #789118
TanDLParticipantHas little to do with science. Has to do with choice. Consumers in Washington and California lost the right to easily determine their own eating choices. We’re now in the hands of science who has only given us safe products that have been thoroughly tested for the last 100 years… NOT!
This voter says yay for your BS and good luck to you. I hope you get to eat mountains of corn that has been genetically altered to produce it’s own herbicide so we can find out what the outcome of this grand experiment will be on human beings. I for one will go out my way to avoid those products and the stores that sell them until more long term testing is done. By the way, according to what I’ve read via Google, GMO testing is not working out that well for rats they’ve tested on, but maybe humans will be luckier.
November 7, 2013 at 11:05 pm #789119
blblParticipantTanDL, I referred to my BS because your link implied that the reason I-522 lost is because of uneducated, ignorant voters who were swayed by big corporate dollars. No it didn’t. It lost because it was a bad law based on fearmongering instead of science.
November 7, 2013 at 11:21 pm #789120
DESMemberTanDL, you are mixing up 2 different traits. Roundup ready traits make a protein that gives plants resistance to an herbicide (e.g. like a protective potion), they don’t make their own herbicide; Bt crops make their own insecticide, that insecticide is an organic pesticide if sprayed onto the crops (e.g. brand names Dipel or Thuricide).
And to TanDL and others who referenced rats getting tumors (e.g. the Fox News report). The paper that you refer to is by Gilles-Eric Seralini published in 2012 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637). I actually referenced this many comments ago. Basically, the paper is garbage: They used too few rats in the study, they used a strain that is very prone to getting tumors in the 1st place and they did not see a concentration dependent effect of the GM maize or roundup as you would expect in a toxicology study – you drink 1 beer you get tipsy, 2 a little more tipsy … a dozen and you’re on the floor. More GM corn or more Roundup did not follow that pattern. Beyond the science the authors barred journalists from talking to other scientists about the paper before its release (normally journalists get outside opinion when writing a story – you read that as “so and so who was not connected to the study said yada yada yada”) and its release corresponded to a book and movie release about the study – seeking publicity maybe?. Below are several links to more detailed critiques of the study. The first 2 links are to Nature and Science, the two most preeminent scientific publications in the world. The 3rd is to a report published by the European Food Safety Commission, the 4th is a video review explaining the flaws in the study and the last one is Wikipedia.
1. http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566
2. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1146.full?sid=7982d33a-f3c9-487e-976b-32aa381a7d65
3. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2986.pdf
4. http://www.biofortified.org/2013/08/drinking-roundup-makes-guys-live-longer/
November 7, 2013 at 11:51 pm #789121
datamuseParticipantDES beat me to it. That study is bad science that should never have passed peer review.
I don’t watch TV and have seen no ads for or against. Like blbl, I read the initiative. I’m not a scientist but I am a science librarian and I help college students do research in scientific literature for a living.
You don’t want to eat GMOs? Then don’t. Buy organic. That’s what it’s there for.
November 8, 2013 at 1:01 am #789122
JoBParticipantI am sorry datamuse.. but this makes me angry
“You don’t want to eat GMOs? Then don’t. Buy organic. That’s what it’s there for.”
if you can’t afford organic then you should just eat what is put in front of you and shut the … up?
the real bottom line here is in the statement made by the Grocery Manufactureres Assoociation…
“”Because a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling laws would be confusing and costly to consumers, GMA will advocate for a federal solution that will protect consumers by ensuring that the FDA, the America’s leading food safety authority, sets national standards for the safety and labeling of products made with GMO ingredients. Our country’s labeling laws have and should continue to be based on health, safety and nutritional content.


http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/06/5886109/grocery-manufacturers-association.html
They can’t wait to write those rules…
just like they just finished writing the rules that were supposed to protect our food supply from the abuses perpetrated by members of their association.
they got a few perks thrown in that are likely to end the ability of small farmers to market through co-ops without instituting the high cost safety measures that are only necessary on factory farms and put a real crimp in the farm to table programs at local schools.
and you really think that is going to be better for consumers?
Not likely.
November 8, 2013 at 1:12 am #789123
WorldCitizenParticipantSo, now that the initiave has lost, we can move on to a well written law next time, right?
I hope California passes the European style law for labeling. That much market share has the tendency to push change across the nation.
November 8, 2013 at 1:41 am #789124
JoBParticipantWorld Citizen..
i am sorry.. but this makes me mad too…
“So, now that the initiave has lost, we can move on to a well written law next time, right?”
the tendency here in Seattle to tank law after law because they aren’t quite perfect drives me to distraction.
wishing and hoping isn’t going to get us perfect…
it didn’t get us the two-fer or three-fer of a sea wall, a tunnel through town and a dedicated pedestrian park/right of way along our waterfront..
instead we will get to pay for the sea wall separately, pay to use the new tunnel and developers are far more likely to profit from the demolished viaduct than citizens.
it didn’t get us the option of actually purchasing a plastic bag if that was our preference .. instead we get to pay for paper at the store and plastic bin liners for our homes…
it didn’t get us rapid transit from West Seattle into town.. instead we get rapid transit which is less than effective.. and even that is on the chopping block.
and it is not likely to get us labeling either.
what it gets us is stalemate…
until big bucks or big politics decides what will benefit them most and implements it..
in this case, it will be the deal that the Grocery Manufacturers Association.. better known at the factory farm fellas.. makes for themselves…
and you can bet the house that it won’t be a good deal for small local farms or co-ops or even mom and pop who sell their excess pickles..
Why the heck do you think they spent so much money defeating this initiative?
I’ll give you a hint.. it wasn’t because the law was poorly written or because they thought it wouldn’t survive a court challenge..
November 8, 2013 at 5:23 am #789125
VBDParticipantThis blog is much more civil than most. I’m seeing quite a few posts around stating how stupid and uninformed the “no” voters are, and how money bought the election.
Put me in the camp of those who did not pay attention to the propaganda on either side. I voted no because I read the initiative. The TV commercials were lame on both sides.
For those who have told me that a flawed initiative is better than no initiative; do you still believe that?
Exit polls showed that as much as 80% of voters support labeling. So why didn’t it pass? You should at least be open to the idea that maybe it was because it’s a poorly conceived law.
Look at the county breakdown, and you’ll see the farming counties were universally against it. Maybe because the sworn statement requirement scared them off. Who knows, but they hated it. Let’s find out why they didn’t like it, instead of just calling them stupid.
Moving forward, let’s not just dismiss the voting population as a bunch of mindless sheep, and consider the shortcomings of I-522, and fix the flaws.
This same concept has failed twice now (California’s prop 37 was essentially the same). If this same lousy method gets presented again in some other state it will fail again. (See Einstein’s definition of insanity).
How about FIXING the flaws and try again? The majority of people want a good label law.
November 8, 2013 at 5:30 am #789126
JoBParticipantVBD..
“For those who have told me that a flawed initiative is better than no initiative; do you still believe that?
Exit polls showed that as much as 80% of voters support labeling. So why didn’t it pass? You should at least be open to the idea that maybe it was because it’s a poorly conceived law.”
or maybe it had something to do with all of the money spent in advertising to convince the farm counties that it wasn’t such a good idea..
While you are at it, you might want to look at who spent those dollars… they weren’t local.
The same dollars that defeated labeling in California defeated labeling here..
therein lies the flaw
November 8, 2013 at 5:39 am #789127
JoBParticipantVBD..
just a question..
but have you pondered the cost to local farmers if the flaws you claimed were inherent in I522 were fixed?
if you think the specter of sworn statements was enough to put them off, how do you think they will respond to a law that puts them in the midst of an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that really would make them less competitive with neighboring states?
have you ever looked at the requirements for existing labeling like non-GMO or Organic?
you should …. because that and more are what you are wishing upon them by fixing those “flaws”.
November 8, 2013 at 5:40 am #789128
datamuseParticipantYeah, organic is a lot more expensive, isn’t it? And yet many of the companies and organizations supporting this bill sell or support organic foods. I think that’s very interesting.
I disagree that this isn’t about science. This initiative contained spurious claims that frankly ARE bad science and that’s one reason I couldn’t support it.
VBD, one thing I’m hearing for why a lot of farmers didn’t support it is that having to even determine which products contained GMOs would have been hellaciously complicated. Supply chains are long, way longer and more complex than most people realize. I mean, the mill doesn’t care if the wheat or corn coming in to be processed is GMO free or not. Suppliers aren’t keeping track unless they are specifically providing GMO-free/organic product, because (this is where the science comes in) there’s no reason for them to do so. This is one reason why passing 522 may well have raised prices.
I-522 was FAR from “not quite perfect”. Saying that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good presupposes that what we were looking at was good, and it wasn’t.
Personally I think labeling is pointless, but if you’re going to have it, have it be useful. And have it be a national guideline, not state by state. Even the laws that just passed in Maine and Connecticut only go into effect if neighboring states follow suit. Why? I’m betting because those states are so small, and their supply chains so intertwined, that otherwise it’ll be effectively impossible. (New Hampshire’s legislature is currently leaning against it.)
November 8, 2013 at 5:42 am #789129
VBDParticipantJoB, read what I wrote above again. What if SOME people ACTUALLY voted no with their own minds, not because of the advertising? And what if that is enough to make a difference?
Shouldn’t you at least find out why they voted no?
Or do you really believe that even an excellent initiative can’t pass, no matter what? I, for one, would have voted yes if it wasn’t such a lousy initiative.
November 8, 2013 at 6:00 am #789130
VBDParticipantAnd JoB, declaring whether a commodity is GE or not does not need to be expensive or complicated. What made I-522 expensive was that it assumed all food was GE unless you proved it wasn’t.
It would be better to just disclose it. A simple standard form with a checkbox that says yes or no. Sworn statements require a lawyer, or at least a notary.
Plus limiting the law to retail was a problem. It should apply to all sectors of commerce.
Ultimately, it may be impossible to do this state by state. A national law would be comparatively simple.
November 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm #789131
JoBParticipantVBD..
a national law will be written by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association …
the same guys whose member’s business practices created the need for a food safety law
which they used to their own benefit to limit competition from small farms that market through any outside agency including co-ops…
if you thought this law was flawed..
wait till you see the national version.
btw.. i don’t know if this is news to you.. but the assumption that most of the food you purchase is GMO.. is a very safe bet.
unless you know the farm where the food was produced and the processing plant where it was processed.. the food you purchase is likely to be GMO.
datamuse is right.. the supply line is long and highly likely to be tainted at some point.
November 8, 2013 at 4:25 pm #789132
JoBParticipantdatamuse..
the science on GMO crops is in it’s infancy… and has been largely controlled by the industry that profits from favorable results.
only time will tell whether or not they are as safe as currently predicted
There is ample evidence that they might not be as effective as predicted…
November 8, 2013 at 4:33 pm #789133
TanDLParticipanthttp://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/07/monsanto-documentary-on-gmo-must-watch.html
This documentary is running around on the internet. Some Canadian and U.S. farmers’ perspective on the GMO issue… the guys who grow our food. I’m not 100% sure about their conclusions – I tried to watch with a skeptical eye – but if even a trickle of their stories are true, I can see why so much money is being spent on fighting labeling laws.
November 8, 2013 at 6:03 pm #789134
F16CrewChiefMemberI think the documentary Food Inc opened my eyes the best about all this. The major food corporations are scary in my opinion. So scary, they can afford their own scientists to sell the idea that genetically altered chicken, corn, milk, etc. are okay to eat. Meanwhile, the rebel scientist that stand against the “Industrial Complex” try saving the Honey Bee’s, the Salmon, keep our polar regions of our planet from melting away. You know, the things nature provided us to survive with.
In short, we have “paid off” scientists and “preservation” scientists…IN MY OWN OPINION!
I choose preservation. I don’t need to see pallets of frozen chicken at Costco, corn syrup in everything I eat, cows pumped full of so much hormones, male human beings need bras and Viagra at 20 years of age.
I want my kids getting stung by the bumblebee that was on the flower they just plucked from my garden. I want to go on a road trip and stop at the local farm and be able to go pick EDIBLE corn, not some altered corn stock created for “fructose”.
I don’t know if anything I wrote made sense, but I’m tired of the food industry in general.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.