Slashdot Mirror
Anti-GMO Activists Win Victory On Hawaiian Island
biobricks writes "New York Times reports on how the county council on the Big Island of Hawaii banned GMOs. 'Urged on by Margaret Wille, the ban’s sponsor, who spoke passionately of the need to “act before it’s too late,” the Council declined to form a task force to look into such questions before its November vote. But Mr. Ilagan, 27, sought answers on his own. In the process, he found himself, like so many public and business leaders worldwide, wrestling with a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence. At stake is how to grow healthful food most efficiently, at a time when a warming world and a growing population make that goal all the more urgent.'"
Damn Republican creationists thugs winning against science. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?_r=0
in other words, going after GMO-the-technique is anti-progressive. one should instead go for (federal) regulation of GMO products. even indiscriminate labeling campaigns just naively suppress the technique, both good and bad usages.
ok, (having spoken my peace); on with the pitchforks and burning-brands!
Remember artificial sweeteners? They kept saying there were no health issues to worry about, they had peer-reviewed clinical studies showing no ill effects, and you were getting sweetness without the calories.
It seemed to a lot of us that something was wrong that story, and it turned out something was wrong. What if they had turned out to be right? No problem - those of us who abstained would've just missed the benefits of using their invention for the first 15-20 years. Well, it's the same with GMOs.
I'm not necessarily endorsing a ban, but those who want GMO-free food should be able to buy it from a local grocer.
Let's make this headline more accurate and honest, okay?
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be unhealthy. GMO products have been made for decades and have been intensely studies by people with a vested interest in keeping them out. This range of scientific lunacy is in the same camp as wifi causes cancer and vaccination scaremongering.
Let's get real, this has jack to do with GMO and everything to do with eco naive that get their talking points from greenpeace and protectionism from those countries that haven't started making their own GMO foods yet. Once other countries start making their own versions of GMO foods all of the objections to GMO foods will vanish overnight from everyone that isn't an eco-naive twit.
Expect military drones to wipe off that small nation. You don't start a war with Big GMO and their lobbyists.
Many unexpecting wedding guests already learned that lesson.
Field tests to study new G.M.O. crops would also be prohibited. Penalties would be $1,000 per day.
What a joke.
That's a rounding error to a multinational corporation.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Women have the RIGHT to choose to eat GMOs if they want and I stand against this right-wing Republican War on Women since they insist on telling women what to do with their bodies!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So a better analogy for GMOs might not be with screwdrivers, but with concentration camps and gas chambers, which by themselves did no harm. After all, it's only in the hands of bad people like Nazis that they got a bad reputation, right? (Screwdrivers are not known for any malevolent uses.)
If you think GMOs are safe as screwdrivers, you just haven't looked at research around the world, research which the US is deliberately ignoring because it would be bad for profits to accept it. Meanwhile, health in the US plummets, you have no idea why, and the entire rest of the world must be wrong. It's kinda funny.
Before It's Too Late!
Somehow that familiar refrain often escapes the notice of critics around here.
More hippy FUD. "....according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems." http://www.mayoclinic.org/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936
It all starts at 0
You could have read the fine article, which nicely mentions "overuse of pesticides". The current reason to use GMO is raised pesticide/herbicide resistance, which naturally means that farmers are encouraged to go overkill with Roundup and co. to kill of everything else in the area. AFAIK it has also been shown that the poisons used accumulate within the plants, sadly the only health study on that point I know of has been unreliable (the lab animals used hat a naturally high chancer rate).
So while GMOs may not be responsible for the harm done to humans, the pesticides/herbicides sold as part of the package - the only reason GMOs are currently used - are responsible for killing of local plants and insects. It might be overly broad, but it is based on reality and facts.
It is not so much the science of GMOs that is specifically bad but the companies that are typically behind them. These companies have a long history of being James Bond Villain evil, manipulating governments to their will, hurting people in corrupt countries, and pushing other things that are bad like pesticides, herbicides, hormone/antibiotic meat, and vicious anti consumer anti labeling campaigns.
The other thing with most GMOs is that they (the main commercial ones) are aimed at things that on the surface I don't care about such as herbicide resistance. I suspect that people would have a whole lot more buy in if the GMOs made the food healthier, tastier, have a longer shelf life (Bananas that don't turn brown in 3 seconds) etc.
But it seems the main beneficiaries of GMOs are big agribusiness and only big agribusiness. So when people reject GMOs they don't personally feel like they are losing much. One might argue that they are losing if the food costs a bit more but the reality is that the savings at the consumer end is actually quite minimal. (In theory a pest resistant crop might have fewer pesticides/herbicides which is a gain but hard for the average consumer to know as big agribusiness has fought all public disclosures of chemical levels in food.)
So looking at the science in most people's heads they might be thinking, "Hey this GMO only has one study in 100 that says it is bad. But what benefit do I have even taking that tiny risk? Whereas the agribusiness people won't eat this crap if it is toxic but they stand to make a fortune selling it."
According to a report from the MLnewshour the bitching isn't so much GMO but the health problems of the people living downwind of the corporate farms that are consistently dumping herbicide on the fields all year round. Many of the health problems are ten times the norm or worse with unusual maladies showing up. It seems the corporations are milking everything for all it's worth without any regard for collateral damage like always. But don't let facts interfere with the slashdot pro-GMO crusade.
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be safe.
These has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown GMO anything to be safe.
There has never been a single reputable study by anyone anywhere that has shown non GMO anything to be safe.
According to this regulating GMO's is a federal responsibility. Will the ban and/or fines even hold up in court?
United States regulatory policy is governed by the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology This regulatory policy framework that was developed under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation.The policy as it developed had three tenets: "(1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of genetic modification (GM) techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."
I am pretty sure that a ban with no scientific review or investigation would fail tenet #2.
The food "shortage" is as phony as a three dollar bill, just like the gas shortages in '73. Everybody is falling for Wall Street trickery.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
duh
Screwdrivers don't reproduce with hammers, permanently altering the property of a hammer.
An island is in a rather unique position regarding GMOs. Once they're let in, there's no turning back. Where's the harm in keeping a naturally isolated island free from them, at the very least until the long term science is real?
Unless, of course, you're simply looking for cheaper Kona coffee due to increased yields.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
When I was studying genetics in the late 80's/early 90's, we were taught that releasing GMOs into the environment was immoral. It had nothing to do with whether or not food products were safe, and everything to do with the impossibility of understanding what effect such new organisms would have on the incredibly complex wild environment. When I heard that Monsanto's GMO crops had become superweeds, causing major problems for farmers not growing Monsanto crops, it seemed that what I was taught was correct. From the article, it seems that most of Hawaii's concern is protecting their ecosystems.
I wonder if Slashdot's minders have been overrun by Cato Institute people? There is logic problem here. If the population is ever increasing, then tweaking food production from finite resources is bound to end in tears as the realities of logarithmic growth curves (for supply) kick in, along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Corrected version: "The pressure to move to GMO foods, along with the phenomenon of global warming, underscores the need to rein in human population growth"
There goes my plan to take over Hawaii with a race of mutated pineapple people! Well, played, Hawaii. Well played.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Conflating hybridization that takes many generations and may or may not yield a specific product with one where you can put completely unrelated and unpredictable genes in is completely wrong."
That is more horseshit. The genes inserted in GMOs are quite predictable. That's why they put them in. The genes in hybrids are the ones that are unpredictable. Your comment suggests that you know this already, but you said the opposite.
This is not winning a victory. It's winning a defeat.
I expect this will get reversed when food prices spike in Hawaii.
Whats wrong with labeling GMO foods? I mean, the people that are so pro-GMO should just eat the GMO themselves and stop forcing it on others. With labeling, people can decide what they want to eat. Is that really so wrong? Its basically similar to the nutrition labels. Whats next, they will remove the sugar content from labels as well since people are avoiding too much sugar?
The Indiana State legislature proposes bill that defines pi to be 3.2 and a procedure to square a circle with compass and straightedge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
"Remember artificial sweeteners? They kept saying there were no health issues to worry about, they had peer-reviewed clinical studies showing no ill effects, and you were getting sweetness without the calories."
And there indeed we're NO HEALTH ISSUES to worry about. Why the fuck are you framing your words like there was? Oh, because you are an actual agent of ignorance, working against basic rationality and reason.
What, you think the two are incompatible?
"Noble" is incompatible with "eeevil"; therefore, yes.
labeling does nothing other than give GM foods a stigma
Nutrition facts are required. Your argument is moot.
There is already a ban on genetically engineered taro in Hawai'i. The justification was that it was religiously offensive to (some) Native Hawaiians (who had been used as tools by anti-GE groups, IMO). How that one managed to become law is baffling, but considering that region is a good enough reason to pass an anti-GE law in Hawai'i, this law passing was not much surprise. Take note, by the way, that the taro research was being done by the University of Hawai'i, also known as not Monsanto. That's right, university research is being stiffed over religion. How is there no outrage over this?
This new law may be overturned however. The farmers do not like it, at least, the ones who aren't peddling overpriced organic food anyway...conveniently, those guys seem okay with legislating away the competition. It is not fair, hurts local agriculture on the Big Island (read the bill,expanding a farm if you use biotechnology comes with a $1000 a day fine, which will not help food security on the island). This whole thing is just wrong. We should be encouraging agriculture, and encouraging technology, not hurting something good and ignoring the real issues that legitimately are cause for concern, like land costs.
However, Tritium will kill you: it's radioactive AND the resulting T2O has a different binding therefore different reaction rates to H2O.
and anything is anything. The Big Tao of Things. Why regulate anything?
Idiot.
They bypassed regulation on control of the site to exclude contamination.
They have been bullied in school and grew up with only one thought: "REVENGE!".
> labeling does nothing other than give GM foods a stigma
Monsanto, is that you?
nitpick : there has not been any study showing GMO currently cultivated to be unhealthy, but there has been 1) GMO made with nut allergene (thankfully stoppedby the firm before commercialisation) 2) evidence of resistance gene spreading in the wild which brings all sort of complication (but again is thankfully not an health problem, more like a crop versus pest growing problem).
But basically you are righ and GMO hater are nutter (pun intended).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Right now, the cavendish banana is being attacked by a fungus that detroys the fruit. The cavendish banana is the one that most Norrth Americans eat, it is an example of a single produce variety dominating the market. The Cavendish banana variety replaced the Gros Michel variety which was wiped out by a similer fungus in the 1950's. The cavendish variey was produced through an early form of GMO enginerring.
About 20% of the areas that produce cavendish have been affected by this fungus with the bigger farms in South America not yet being attacked.
Wonder how many GMO critics will stand on principle and refuse to eat a GMO banana variety that replaces the cavendish?
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Corn can be altered so the plants produce the toxic-pesticide molecules themselves.
Now the farmer no longer needs to spray with pesticides.
But do you think this is healthier? Nope.
More profitable to the farmer? Yep.
End the bad news is: in the end, the insects will adapt (quickly) and then what? Add more self-pesticide-producing genes?
Doing 16 ideologically incompatible things before breakfast and demanding that all their fellow conservatives do it harder lest they be labeled a heretic.
Calling anti-gmo activists ant-science is a monsanto trick and it's getting annoying. Watch Seeds of Death and learn something about how Business works...
End of Line.
Look folks for all the supposed benefits of genetically engineered foods it has been done for one main reason. To sell more glyphosate (RoundUp).
Every time you eat RoundUp ready food, which is 90% of GM food, you are eating glyphosate. That kills plants by what is known as the shikimate pathway. That pathway exists in the bacteria in your gut. Destroy it and autoimmune and inflammation based diseases will run rampant.
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, "Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases" Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-01416.pdf
Enjoy eating your poison folks. I'm going to make sure the stuff I eat isn't and without labeling laws it is very hard but I'm not going to knowingly put poison in my stomach. That would be just plain stupid.
It is unconscionable that the global food system has been tampered with by companies, such as Monsanto and Dow , which have left a legacy of disasters behind them. There should have been a global ban years ago.
We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops
At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops.
Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban.
The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products dumped from the shelves (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied.
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii; There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii and ban genetically engineered food and crops. We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops
At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding, but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops.
Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban.
The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products from the shelves, dumped; (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied.
There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii and ban genetically engineered food and crops. We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops
At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding, but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops.
Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban.
The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products from the shelves, dumped; (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied.
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii; There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii and a ban genetically engineered food and crops. We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops
At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding, but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops.
Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban.
The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products from the shelves, dumped; (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied.
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii; There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched.
The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii and ban genetically engineered food and crops. We are living in a wake of negligence from previous harmful substances that were once deemed safe for human health and the environment. Given the unattended consequences of genetically engineered foods and crops, and the global commitment to the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration, and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992, it becomes imperative to institute a global ban on genetically engineered foods and crops At a Conference in 1998, in St Louis, scientists stated that using the term Genetically modified would be confusing because there has been modification over the years through breeding, but breeding is completely distinct from Genetic engineering/transgenic processes. The scientists advised everyone to use the terms genetically engineered or transgenic food and crops. Those opposed to Genetically engineered food and crops do pay attention to science For example, Dr. Thierry Vrain a genetic engineer who worked for 30 years for Agriculture Canada pointed out the following: While on the one hand, the biotech companies argued initially that they should get a patent because their transgenic products were unique; on the other hand, subsequently they proceeded to argue that there was no need to test these products derived from the transgenic process because they were substantially equivalent. He has left the department and is speaking out against genetically engineered food and crops , and he now supports a ban. The profusion of genetically engineered food and crops resulted from institutional collusion. The institutional Collusion, in relation to genetically engineered food and crops, among corporations, governments, universities and regulatory agencies has been endemic; For the sake of food safety and food security for present and future generations: (i) this collusion must end; (ii) the precautionary principle must be invoked, (iii) genetically engineered food and crops, banned; (iv) Genetically engineered products from the shelves, dumped; (v) the charters of Monsanto et al, revoked; and (vi) charges of gross/criminal negligence against these corporations, levied. The rest of the world should follow the lead of Hawaii; There has been a petition, calling for a global ban, launched. http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-un-general-assembly-institute-a-global-ban-on-genetically-engineered-food-and-crops
Or it could be the industry is selling the public lies to keep truth about lack of positive results in science to backup thier claims including Golden Rice.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/08/fakethrough-gmos-and-the-capitulation-of-science-journalism/
But why ask for science proof, when repeating the propaganda just works.