http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/01/state-sends-initiative-to-label-genetically-modified-foods-to-the-fall-ballot Comments On: State Sends Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Foods to the Fall Ballot by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Cordwainer]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:53:25 -0800 The Stranger
We are seeing "the effects", but until the "of what" is defined, assigning these arbitrary factors is irresponsible.
Posted by undead ayn rand]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:34 -0800 The Stranger Check out this article regarding the increase in acute kidney disease over the last ten years. We are seeing the effects, we just can't directly correlate data because we are all tests subjects and we have no control group.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/12/13267/s…
Posted by flashpoint]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:58:06 -0800 The Stranger Hybridization is not genetic engineering of GMO's. It's very different, and you should do the research and understand why. It would take you about an hour or two. Encouraging traits beneficial to agriculture through selective breeding is very different than splicing plant DNA for herbicide resistance.
And it hasn't been thoroughly tested. The FDA didn't require any testing of GMO ag products. The producers of these products have tested them to make sure they do what they want them to do, but there have been no tests on human safety, unless you count this study on rats that showed their filter organs degraded rapidly over 90 days in the study compared to rats on a non GMO diet:
http://www.biolsci.org/v06p0590.htm

But what is more important, is this bill is not about the negative impacts of GMO's on our bodies or farm practices, it's about labeling GE foods. So if you trust Monsanto's propaganda, eat all the GMO corn syrup you want, but let me make the decision for myself.
Posted by flashpoint]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:38:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by flashpoint]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:07:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by undead ayn rand]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:57:42 -0800 The Stranger
So excuse me if I don't believe Monsanto telling me everything is wonderful out of hand. I see a lot of news of more and more physical and mental disorders. Could be just more reporting, I don't know. People in India are still living with the effects of a spill by Monsanto decades ago. And Monsanto has spent a lot of money denying it. And I'm supposed to believe they have my best interests at heart? Really? Just because they provide jobs?

I don't know that I can even trust the "organic" branding. I mean, I don't visit the farm. I don't know for certain they don't use Round-Up or buy their seed from Monsanto.

Nothing wrong with labeling. If a can of corn on a shelf says "improved by dinkering", and the one next to it isn't, I'll err on the side of caution.

And living in Washington state, I will be voting for the labeling.
Posted by diamondmask]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 07:34:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ww]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:46:55 -0800 The Stranger
@54 _ Do you also remember him supporting the invasion of Iraq as late as 2010?

The only-GM-agriculture-can-feed-the-world myth is going to be freely regurgitated over the next few years. Better be ready for it. See my post @36.
Posted by anon1256]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:41:13 -0800 The Stranger
The way @50 describes it, label requirements are just a slower, less effective way to achieve this.
Posted by digitalwitch]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:27:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Free Lunch]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:02:45 -0800 The Stranger Incredible comments here today ! ! ! !

Outstanding and thanx to the many thoughtful people regarding this most serious of issues.

Anyone know who the majority owner of Monsanto is, BTW?????

(I know some years back, when we were researching it, appeared to pertain to that old German rock song, rock-a-feller, rocka ..rocka...rock-a-feller.)
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:26:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sperifera]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:23:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by katrat]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:25:06 -0800 The Stranger
All that aside, did anyone at Food, Inc, proofread the "consumers can avoid GMO's by buying organic" line of argument? How do we know if food is organic? BECAUSE IT'S LABELED. Case closed.

I-522 passes in a walk.
Posted by Che Guava]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:30:48 -0800 The Stranger
And it's not because I'm afraid of foreign-made shoes making me sick, or because the quality is worse. In fact, shoes from China are indistinguishable from US-made shoes. Except for the label, which says "Made in China."

Without that label, I'd be unable to make the choice to support US workers and US industries. Is that labeling unfair to China? They probably think so.

But if I don't like the business model of the GMO industry (which is more of a what-if than my actual position), I have no similar options. Not every food product is available in organic form, and don't try to tell me that all non-organic foods are genetically modified. At least not yet.

I don't see how someone can support zero labeling on GMO due to its being nutritionally identical or as-safe or whatever, and yet support the "Made in China" label on shoes.

Might as well say, "Why should anyone care where the shoes are made. They're the same."
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:56:21 -0800 The Stranger
Please.
Posted by GermanSausage]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:42:21 -0800 The Stranger
Labeling will allow consumers to vote with their feet and put pressure on the industry to accept greater regulations or do you expect the former Monsanto executive-run FDA to do it voluntarily? Setting up their own rules without consumer pressure is the reason why the industry doesn't want labeling.

Implying that pitfalls of conventional agriculture make pitfalls of GE agriculture acceptable (your last paragraph) doesn't logically follow.

@48 - Endocrine disrupting pesticides have been in use much longer than GMO's and we are still sorting out what they do. Uncontrolled experiments, however lengthy, won't tell you much about the safety of GMO's for human health.
Posted by anon1256]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:15:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by BLUE]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:00:35 -0800 The Stranger
But I suppose we could always just buy all the quinoa and send our cheap GMO foods to the Peruvian farmers. Never mind the incredible benefits in soil management and yield increases the technology has facilitated and the fact that the growing human population will almost certainly need genetic modification and other technology to ensure everyone has food to eat, especially in the face of climate change.
Posted by cjb5]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:30:47 -0800 The Stranger http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_i…)

Obviously, farming innovations should be tested for safety and regulated to prevent tragedy of the commons. But GMO foods are already subject to testing. And while personally I would support stricter regulation on herbicide/pesticide use to prevent resistance from developing, labeling does nothing to further that goal.

Every choice we make has a cost. So the question is if the benefits from labeling exceed the costs? Organic foods already are GMO-free, so provide a choice for someone who wants to avoid GMO products. Who is the consumer that desires conventional (pesticide/herbicide grown) food that's not-GMO? Because that's the only person this law would benefit.
Posted by Another Andrew]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:53:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by raku]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:32:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:26:02 -0800 The Stranger
Look, I may be pro-science, but I'm also pro-GMO-labeling. Just because you can alter genomes, through selective breeding (animal or plant husbandry) or through scientific alteration including the addition of OFF switches that respond to the lack of a corporate-supplied additive (as Monsanto loves to do), doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Prion disease is merely genetic modification, but we don't allow that, and we screen for it. We didn't use to, but now we do.

Consumers should be entitled to feedback. Non-GMO food tends to have lower pesticide usage, which is linked to various things, like Parkinson's, but the FDA is not permitted to research the impacts on humans, so labels allow us to make an informed choice.

An informed choice like "Sure, no prob" or maybe "No way, Jose".
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:23:27 -0800 The Stranger
But in any case, the issue of intellectual property concerns (which I tend to share) really doesn't have anything to do with labeling requirements anyways?
Posted by Another Andrew]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:18:20 -0800 The Stranger