Comments

1
Re: Joel Connelly's last ¶, $1.2 million in 1981 is the equivalent of only $3.1 million today. That the opposition to I-522 is spending more than five times that in current dollars shows clearly the increasing dominance of corporate interests in politics (as if more examples were needed), as well as the excess profits they are able to accrue in order to buy whatever marketplace environment they wish.
2
But a California soap company spending $2 million to support GMO food labels in WA state is ok ? What exactly is Dr Bonner's dog in this fight (other than how they didn't win in California where they spent only $290,000) ?
3
Would the slog please, please, please bait Tim Eyeman into endorsing or signing onto the "No" campaign?

That would almost certaintly ensure defeat.
4
I was watching the latest 'No' commercial with the State's Attorney (?) and he was saying that because it was an imperfect bill then it should be enacted. Got me wondering if legislature's purposefully write imperfect bills so that they have a way around enacting them. Kind of like purposefully doing a half-assed job so that you won't get asked to do it again.
5
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
6
I'm honestly wondering what the science is behind GMOs. I hate Monsanto, they're horrible, but are genetically modified foods really harmful to eat?

I'm sort of worried this is knee-jerk skepticism, not based on science, like people's fear of vaccines and I'm interested to read what everyone thinks.
7
@5 We had the science-esque debate on a previous thread. Some people claim GMOs have health effects, but the science doesn't show that & the consensus is they're safe for consumption. GMOs do correlate with large scale agriculture which has negative impacts on health and the environment (but a lot of that is for livestock feed which is not covered by the referendum). Ultimately the winning argument in my book is a person's right to know, but I am not convinced this warrants a "clear, conspicuous" label on the front of a package. Unfortunately if you express doubts about the initiative you will likely be labeled a Monsanto-apologist or corporate shill. That's the level this debate is happening at, hence the overwhelming concern over the financials.
8
Annie18, depends on the GM. The FDA has approved any GMO marketed for human consumption and the most widespread ones (roundup resistance and bt toxin) are safe because 1) humans don't have the enzyme roundup targets and 2) bt toxin's target doesn't exist in humans and it was used as a naturally occuring, topical pesticide for many years before being incorporated in bt crops). That said, there could also be ways to make a GMO that isn't safe.... not that any food company has been shown to do that.

The term GMO is overly broad which is why it's a silly label without discussing specifics. It's like saying you need war powers authorization to combat evil doers.... someone will want to know the specifics (unless 9/11, then it doesn't matter).
9
@5 was for @6. Apologies.
10
@9, we need EndNote for Slog! (What a revelation when those in-text citations fixed themselves, eh?)
11
@8- I never understood that either. Saying all GMOs are safe (or unsafe) is silly considering the infinite number of ways food could be genetically modified. My hope is that by putting this scarlet letter on food, it ultimately carries a negative connotation that translates into monetary incentive for food manufacturers to go organic, or at least create transparency around the GMOs they are using.
12
@11 Organic foods already command premium pricing so that incentive already exists.

The negative connotation of which you speak is the real goal of this referendum. It is an attempt to manipulate consumer behavior with big scary labels that aren't all that informative. Information goes on the rear of packaging, mandatory warnings go on the front. This is all about spooking people.
13
It's hard to agree it's better not to inform people. Arrogant arguments that people aren't smart enough to make their own decision reek of the 'no' campaign.
14
@12 But no one lists GMOs on the back of the packing right now... When they've got a mandatory warning on front, you bet they'll have the incentive to explain it on the back.
15
Whole Foods is for 522 and they're a large grocer. What gives?
16
@14 if the bill was for a label of prescribed font in any location, I'd be for it. But the law we are considering is for a mandatory conspicuous front label, so that's what needs to be argued. It's rationale and intent are not simply to inform. "Informed or not" is a misleading straw man. It's an effective ploy because we all agree informed is better. We just disagree on whether a particular kind of label, intended to scare people, is justified and appropriate.
17

I think I would take the opposite approach.

Establish an official NO-GMO label. Copyright it and set up an organization.

Then, certify products that are allowed to use it and license them at a very low cost (to fund the service).
18
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/… You mean like this label ? But the tin foil hat crowd will say that the FDA is being run as a puppet of monsanto so this means nothing.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/06/25/usda…
The FDA responded to the Non-GMO Project's labeling efforts in April: “The FDA supports voluntary labeling for food derived from genetic engineering. Currently, food manufacturers may indicate through voluntary labeling whether foods have or have not been developed through genetic engineering provided that such labeling is truthful and not misleading.”

The USDA adopted the Non-GMO Project’s requirements, auditing process and standard. The USDA also must approve all labels before the product is delivered.
19
18, not a "puppet", but it's no secret that those who are hired to run the FDA are from the corporations they are hired to regulate, and when they step down from the FDA, they return to those very same corporations. This isn't "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory, it's simply facts. Facts that you can deduce from how you will on what the true goal of how the FDA operates.

And if you don't think that a federal regulatory agency would have any political bias, you must have been asleep during the entire Bush administration.

Also, your point in 8 is a complete non-sequitor. Since it's being used so liberally in anti-522 literature, it can be defined as propaganda. The science isn't the issue. There have been arguments over MSG, whether salt is good or bad, sugar & sugar substitutes, etc. They are still consumed, but they must be labelled. None of the science makes any difference. The only question is about knowing what is in your food.

If you have a problem w/ the labels themselves, that's a legitimate issue. But the very idea of knowing what is in our food should be a caveat. For hundreds of years, the food business worldwide has shown that if they could feed us sawdust & get away with it, they will. Which they do, btw. There is no reason whatsoever to think that agri-business cares about you or me or anyone else. It's only about the bottom line. Which is why they're fighting this thing tooth & nail. They feel their bottom line will suffer. If you don't agree, fine. I'm sure you'll trust anyone & anything as long as they promise you it's chocolate. Which is what is coming out of my ass right now. Why don't you give it a lick? I assure you, you will enjoy it.
20
Ok, but things like sugar and salt are quantifiable parts of the end product that you'll be certain to ingest. If a plant has a GM that makes the corn husk have polka dots on it and, other than DNA, doesn't alter the corn grain that is harvested, why should it be labelled "Genetically Engineered" on the front anymore than it should say "harvested by illegal immigrants paid about $3 an hour" ?
21
@6: Similarly, I can't figure out which side to spite.
22
@19 you acknowledge that taking issue with the type of label is legitimate but rather than offering arguments in favor of the label at hand, you kill a straw man and invite someone to eat shit. Are there arguments in favor of this kind of label?
23
@20 The law of unintended consequences. Tweaking genes may have more effects than those intended by the tweaker and it may take a while to find out what those are.
24
smade, it's not like anyone is mating with roundup resistant corn (... although, this is the SLoG so, NTTIAWWT). Stuff that goes into your stomach is generally broken down into single amino acids or less that your body regulates the absorption of. The likelihood of unintended consequences in food being anything is significantly diminished by that.
25
@23: You do realize that "law" is a folkism, not science.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.