The very model of industry narrative regarding the issue is to promote a left-right paradigm in order to avoid public debate on the more critical aspects. It's fear. It's expected. And sometimes it's welcomed because it serves as the very rope that determines it's fate.Originally Posted by cajuncocoa
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-27-2014 at 07:52 PM.
Thank you, Ender. Although I had looked forward to angela's response to the question. Seems to me that she's attempting to minimize the facts to stimulate a free market debate (which is itself merely a single aspect of the issue) without placing into relevance the fact that what we have here is mercantilism. And again, we'd do well to try to better understand the relevance in regard to Monsanto and other similar industries who fiddle in foreign and domestic policy as agents of government.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-27-2014 at 07:51 PM.
Supes approve vote on GMOs
Humboldt County "Genetic Contamination Prevention Ordinance" GMO Ban Initiative
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted during its Tuesday meeting to place an ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and growing of genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, in Humboldt County before the voters on November.4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Humboldt County, California.
The Committee for a GMO Free Humboldt has requested and received an official ballot title and summary for an initiative measure that would, if successful, "prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, or growing of genetically modified organisms in Humboldt County."
The ordinance enacted by the approval of this measure would classify the growth of genetically modified organisms as a public nuisance and would dictate that violations be referred to the county agricultural commissioner. In the event of a violation, the genetically modified materials would be confiscated or destroyed, and a fine could be imposed. In cases of a citizen making an allegation of GMO growing activity, the person with the complaint would be required to show convincing evidence of the violation.
The Committee for a GMO Free Humboldt needed only about 4,300 valid signatures to qualify their initiative for a voter decision, but leaders of the committee submitted over 8,500 signatures during the last weeks of April 2014.
The official ballot title is: Prohibition on the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically modified organisms in Humboldt County.
Any violation of this ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance.
Schaser, a spokesman for GMO Free Humboldt, said, "I’m not opposed to biotech. My big push is the question, ‘Is [a GMO ban] in our best interest for Humboldt County’s economic development?’"
He also pointed to the success of local, organic farmers for whom it is important to be able to guarantee the GMO free status of their products, as their clients are willing to pay more for GMO free and organic foods. Schaser said that the sale of local organic products totaled $44 million in 2011. He also indicated that it was becoming more and more difficult for farmers to find non-GMO seeds every year.
Rick Littlefield, owner of Eureka Natural Foods, said, "This initiative will really give a boost to our local food system and our local economy.
Organic, natural, non-GMO - these are really key selling points for local farmers and producers marketing their products both here in Humboldt and beyond the redwood curtain.
They command a premium and help our local businesses survive and thrive."
Reportedly, GMO corn or other GMO seeds can be easily spread from field to field through pollination and shared farm equipment. The genetic modification in use creates plants that are resistant to glyphosate, commonly sold as "Roundup" and used to kill weeds, allowing fields of crops to be sprayed with the herbicide without damaging the productive plants. Schaser said that tiny amounts of chemicals, although not harming the genetically modified plants, do remain in the cells of the plants and are ingested by animals and humans who eat the crops. Moreover, although glyphosate is thought to be harmful only to plants and not humans, some studies allegedly show long-term toxic effects to beneficial bacteria in the human body helpful for digestion, absorption of nutrients and resistance to infections.
Aside...most recent local GMO Bans (past week)
Jackson County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 15-119 (May 2014)
Josephine County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, Measure 17-58 (May 2014)
The full text of recent passed legislation
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-29-2014 at 05:14 AM.
Lane County Genetically Modified Organism Ban
http://www.localfoodrights.com/press_release
A Lane County Genetically Modified Organism Ban, also known as the Lane County Local Food System Ordinance, ballot measure may be on a 2014 election ballot for voters in Lane County, Oregon.
According to the website of the Eugene-based Support Local Food Rights (SLFR), which is running the initiative effort, this measure, if it reaches the ballot and is approved, would do the following:
Recognize the right of residents "to a local food system that assures residents’ ability to grow and produce food, while at the same time, recognizing natures ability to thrive
Prohibit genetically modified crops in Lane County
Place the rights of the community over corporate agribusiness powers and privileges.
The first section of the ordinance proposed by Support Local Food Rights, entitled "Purpose," is below:
We the people of Lane County believe that ecology, economy, and food are inseparable and that the health of one fosters and enhances the health of all.
We the people of Lane County know that the local food system of Lane County is essential to the well-being of residents, farmers, local food producers, consumers, and our local economy, and is dependent upon the health of the natural communities of Lane County.
We the people of Lane County assert that our local food system can function and thrive only where there are protected rights to local food and seed heritage, and rights for natural communities; all of which are anchored by the right of the community to self-government; and that our local food system can exist and endure only in the absence of seed patents, genetically engineered organisms, and corporate and government interference in the aforementioned rights.
We the people of Lane County assert that our right to local self-government is inherent, fundamental, and inalienable, and that our U.S. Declaration of Independence proclaims that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
We the people of Lane County affirm that the Oregon Constitution guarantees "that all [people], when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."
We the people of Lane County understand that corporate constitutional rights, state preemption, and other civil laws and regulations that benefit corporations may be used to usurp the will of the people, thereby rendering the people of Lane County powerless to legislate matters of county concern, including the protection of our local food system and our natural communities.
Now, therefore, the people of Lane County hereby adopt this Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as the "Local Food System Ordinance of Lane County."
The full text of the ordinance that would be enacted by the approval of this measure is available here
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-29-2014 at 12:58 AM.
Anti-GMO measure goes to Benton voters
Benton County Genetically Modified Organism Ban
The Benton County Community Rights Coalition needs 2,171 valid signatures by an early August 2014 deadline to qualify its initiative for the November ballot.
Text of measure
The first section of the ordinance, entitled "Findings and intent," reads as follows:
Section 1. Findings and Intent
We the people of Benton County have the inalienable right to grow, raise, rear, access, harvest, preserve, process, exchange, and consume – both individually and collectively – whole food and food products from a local food system.
We the people of Benton County find that our right to a local food system is essential to the well-being of the County’s residents and natural communities, as well as the health, resilience, and flourishing of the local economy, of which local agriculture plays a vital role.
We the people of Benton County have the right to a local food system and seed heritage that does not harm the right of natural communities to exist, persist, and flourish; adapts to local growing conditions; promotes biodiversity, resilience, and productivity; and provides for the social, equitable, nutritional, economic, and cultural enhancement of the quality of life for all residents of Benton County.
We the people of Benton County find that the civil right to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute open pollinated seeds, which is the foundation of all agriculture, is required – both individually and collectively – to secure the peoples’ commonly held seed heritage and right to a local food system.
We the people of Benton County find that the patenting and ownership of seeds and other self-replicating life forms used for the growing, rearing, or raising of food is a direct threat to our inalienable right – both individually and collectively – to grow, save, preserve, protect, harvest, adapt, and distribute seed to grow food and produce food products from one generation to another within Benton County.
We the people of Benton County find that the patenting and privatization of seeds that have been genetically modified interferes with the diversity of and access to the people’s seed heritage, reduces the people’s ability to save, replant, and adapt open pollinated seeds free of contamination, limits research and development of seeds and other life forms adapted to local growing conditions and soils that meet the economic and nutritional needs of the community, and encourages the use of genetically modified or altered life forms which pose significant risks to natural communities and farmer livelihoods through irreversible contamination of crops and related species.
We the people of Benton County understand that any attempt to prohibit the privatization and use of patented seed may run afoul of claimed corporate "rights" to engage in those practices, as well as State or federal laws. We understand that failure to legislatively challenge those "rights" and laws guarantees that a local food system will never exist.
We the people of Benton County therefore enact this local law pursuant to the inherent and inalienable right of the residents of Benton County to govern their own county for their own health, safety, and welfare. That authority is also secured by the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people, in the State Constitution of Oregon’s recognition that all power is inherent in the people, and in the Benton County Charter, which delegates the authority to the people and their representatives to enact local legislation on matters of county concern;
Therefore, through this Ordinance, which shall be known and cited as the "Local Food System Ordinance of Benton County, Oregon", the people of Benton County ordain as follows: http://bentonccrc.org/the-initiative/
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-29-2014 at 05:12 AM.
Citizens Initiative Updates...
Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative
Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Ban Initiative ballot question will likely be on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Maui County, Hawaii.
If approved, this measure would prohibit any growth, testing or cultivation of genetically modified or engineered crops and would put a stop to any genetic modification and engineering operations in the county until an environmental and public health study is conducted and finds the proposed cultivation practices to be safe and harmless. This measure is the first ever initiative attempt in Maui County, where the initiative power was granted through its charter in 1983.
The group of initiative proponents, including over 400 volunteer signature gatherers, turned in their initiative petitions, which contained over 9,500 signatures, to the county clerk on April 8, 2014. Moreover, they collected about 3,000 additional signatures to submit if their first batch is found to be insufficient. They need 8,464 of the submitted signatures to be valid to qualify their initiative for the ballot.
Proponents reported overwhelmingly positive responses from the Maui voters, collecting their signatures in less than six weeks, while they were allowed 6 months by law.
The activists are largely targeting Monsanto, the agriculture company that is responsible for the most genetic modification experiments and operations in county.
Monsanto was most recently defeated in their campaign to oppose a full GMO ban in Jackson County, Oregon, donating over $183,000 to the campaign against the initiative which had a war chest of nearly a million dollars, largely donated by big agriculture companies like Monsanto.
http://www.shakamovement.org/
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-29-2014 at 05:11 AM.
Text of the Shaka Movement ordinance...quoted verbatim
It's rather lengthy
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-29-2014 at 10:03 PM.
California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill
Continued - California lawmakers reject GMO labeling bill
The California Senate rejected on Wednesday a bill that would require labels on genetically-engineered foods. This is the second time in two years that labeling legislation has fallen short in the most populous and agriculturally-productive state.
Senate Bill 1381 fell short of passage by just two votes in the 40-member chamber. The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Noreen Evans, said she would attempt to convince Senate leaders to bring a reconsideration vote on Thursday, according to the Sacramento Bee, before the legislative session ends on Friday.
Supporters of labeling laws point to unknown dangers to human and environmental health that lurk in the manipulation of the genetic makeup of crops like soy and corn, as well as the power over the world’s food supply that GMO seeds represent for agribusiness giants.
But opponents of labeling laws insist GMOs are safe and allow science to address a growing population amid deteriorating environmental conditions such as those caused by climate change.
Powerful food industry and biotechnology players are currently banding together on many fronts to protect their investment in GMO technology despite national and international pushback. Their main effort in the US is seen in federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures
Polling suggests over 90 percent of Americans would prefer GMO ingredients in consumables to be labeled to some extent.
The claim that genetically-engineered food poses no risk to human and environmental health is far from settled, despite the industry's assertions.
In October, 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims made by the biotech industry about a so-called “consensus” on GMO safety. They said more independent research is needed, as existing studies that say GMOs are safe are overwhelmingly funded and supported by biotech companies.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-30-2014 at 05:28 PM.
http://sweetsustainability.net/2014/...d-i-hate-gmos/I’m a Farm Wife. And I Hate GMOs.
I’m a farm wife – of a grain farmer. A GMO grain farmer. There’s been a lot of heated debates about GMOs lately, as there should be, and it seems like I hear the same things repeated over and over in our agricultural community. If you’re against GMOs, you’re against farmers. If you’re against GMOs, you must be some yuppie woman from the city who drops her children off at their charter school, hits up her organic market, and goes back to her 7th floor flat to practice her internet activism against GMOs. If you are that mom, no offense, and the movement can certainly use you, provided that you really do your research and don’t quote things from NaturalNews without first making sure they are entirely unbiased and true.
You’d be hard pressed to find someone who loves agriculture more than I do. I grew up in a farming family; my family raised produce, garden plants, meat animals and horses. Granddaddy also tanned hides to sell, traded ginseng, and had a ham store that really was internationally-renowned. I still remember the smell of the curing days in the fall – spicy peppers and sweet brown sugar. Yum. It’s making me hungry. But I digress. I loved agriculture so much that I majored in it in undergrad at Virginia Tech. B.S. in Animal and Poultry Sciences. I even went on to get my M.S. in Agriculture and Extension Education. After college, I was lucky enough to meet a grain farmer who was crazy handsome and sweet and funny and all of those things that scream husband material. And he somehow found me cute and fun enough to marry. My idea of a great morning is a hot cup of locally-roasted coffee accompanying me out into the garden until my boys wake up and coming back in the house sweaty, accomplished, and with really dirty jean knees. Here I stand actually, 5 months pregnant, sweaty, with dirty jean knees, writing this post as I make dinner while the boys are out checking soils at the different farm fields. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
As I mentioned above, I married a grain farmer. When I met him, my only thought was “well that’s neat”, because my family had never been involved in cereal grain production. We’re near the East Coast and grains aren’t as huge here as they are in say, the Midwest. Now that I know what they are, I remember seeing sprayers in fields and thinking “Wow, it must cost a lot of money to irrigate fields with all that water!” I kind of wish I still thought it was water. My family had never used any chemicals other than lime in our fields, so chemical agriculture was a whole new ballgame to me. I literally had no clue. Fast forward seven years, and here I am writing this post. Why now? Well, a few reasons. The debate heating up obviously makes it a good time. But I also feel like there are some of us who haven’t had a voice in that debate, or at least been outspoken enough. And by “we”, I mean farmers who don’t actually *like* GMOs. Now my qualifications as a farmer may be iffy – I don’t actually help my husband in the field, and I’m not employed by his farm. I’m a mere spectator to that part. My “farming” is in my chickens down the hill, my berry patches, and my garden. That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn. Because we’re NOT in the “grain belt”, grain elevators here are hard to find that take non-GMO grains separately. In short, there’s no market for non-GMO unless we find a small supplier that’s willing to take a chance on it (which is what happened this year and last, thankfully). If we grow non-GMO and nobody buys it, that doesn’t help you, or us.
So to the meat of it – why would I hate GMOs? Well, I’m going to outline several reasons. Sure, part of what you hear from me will be what you’ve heard from other GMO activists. Safety concerns, concerns about evil corporations, etc. I do not disagree with those points that many activists make. And let me say here that many times, when I’ve heard folks insult “anti-GMO activists” and I chime in, I get the “Well yeah but you’re not one of the crazy activists, so you don’t count in [whatever insult I just made]” Aren’t I? I readily admit I am one of the most outspoken people you will find on the topic. I don’t hesitate to write legislators, sign petitions, or call Monsanto on their BS on their Facebook page. I AM one of those crazy activists. And that’s fine with me. You don’t change the world by behaving. But my reasons for hating GMOs go way beyond many of the normal things you usually hear from The Activists. I truly feel that these companies and these seeds are threatening to utterly DESTROY our industry.
#1. Proof of Safety? Doubtful. On either side of the debate, you’ve heard this one: “GMOs have a long, proven track record of safety. Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have all proven that they are completely safe.” Ehhhhh not so much. Once you really start looking into these “studies”, you realize that ALL – let me repeat that – ALL of them are industry-sponsored. What does that mean? Well, to put it in basics, Monsanto has conducted a study to say that Monsanto’s products are completely safe. See the problem here? Those safety studies determine the future of their products and their company. If you were Monsanto, would you not ensure that if you’re going to conduct a study, it comes out in your favor? There have been NO independent studies done on GMOs that have been approved, because the seeds are patented and the GMO manufacturers will not release the patents for independent testing. Furthermore, the FDA/USDA/ANY other regulatory agency does NOT test, nor sponsor testing of GMOs. The only requirements for these federal agencies to say these products are safe are 30-day trials, conducted by the companies themselves. Look at the incidence of degenerative diseases in our society. 100 years ago, we worried about communicable diseases – diseases passed from one person to the other. Today, we worry much more about diseases that have nothing to do with “catching” anything from the folks around us. Lots of people are chalking it up to genetics but as a species evolves, does it not improve genetically? Do I think GMOs are the cause of cancers, Alzheimer’s, and other degenerative diseases? No, probably not on their own. Do I think what we are putting on and in our bodies is the cause? AB-SO-FREAKING-LUTELY. Perhaps our genes make us more predisposed to developing these conditions, but the CAUSE is not our genes; it is our food, and the chemicals that we surround ourselves with. Being anti-GMO is NOT being anti-science, or anti-technology. It is being anti-industry-bull$#@!. I’m of the opinion that until we really get some good, long-term information about how we digest the changed genetic structures of these GMOs and how they can affect our bodies, they should not be in virtually every food we eat.
#2. Chemicals. This part of GMO grain production actually bothers me more than the genetic splicing and insertion itself. We KNOW the chemicals applied to GMO grain crops are harmful. And though the companies who manufacture these chemicals (ironically, the same companies who manufacture our GMO food seeds (?!?!)) would like to tell us that they don’t stick around long enough to affect our bodies when we eat GMO foods, this is patently false, as proven by LOTS of recent studies – most notably those showing the levels of glyphosate (Roundup) showing up in American breastmilk (Google it – it’s real, it’s reliable, and the government is reviewing Roundup safety as a result). And yes, I absolutely realize that chemical application is not limited to GMO grain production. Non-GMO grains, as well as organic (sorry, folks, it’s true) grains may also get treated with dangerous chemicals. However, many GMO grains have been specifically developed to withstand an incredible amount of pesticide application. Trust me, while you may find non-GMO and organic products that possibly haven’t been sprayed, you can bet your bottom dollar that GMO products are LOADED with pesticides. Another part of GMO production and its relationship with chemicals has to deal with no-till agriculture – meaning that when a crop is planted, the soil is not tilled. There are several benefits to no-till that involve topsoil conservation and maintaining the health of our waterways. It’s also quicker and cheaper. No-till is a great thing, save for one thing – chemical application. In traditional agriculture, tilling kills the weeds growing on top of a field that is to be planted. In no-till, another means of killing those weeds must be employed; and to date, the only viable option is chemical application. No-till and GMO production don’t always have to go hand in hand, but in reality, they often do. After the initial spray, growing plants can then be sprayed again and again with Roundup to ensure no weeds grow while the crop is young and getting established.
#3. GMOs are eroding our creativity and connection with agriculture. Find an old time farmer and he will probably tell you about cover crops, companion planting, and all of his tricks to keeping weeds and bugs out of his crop fields. As we embrace GMO technology without a second thought, we are killing our creativity and our knowledge in the process. Who needs to talk to an old timer now? We have sprays for that. I realize that some folks view this as a win – “Our problems are solved!” – but what happens when the chemical solution to the problem is no longer a viable one and we no longer know any other way? A great example of this is Roundup resistance. Many weeds are now becoming resistant to Roundup and are either requiring even more enormous amounts of Roundup application, or a different poison altogether (which is why Dow is currently in the approval process of 2,4-D resistant gene technology – in case you aren’t aware, 2, 4-D is one of the components of Agent Orange).
#4. Betting the farm – literally – on new technology that’s in the process of being rejected. THIS one is the most important and the most concerning point to me. The agricultural community has been so quick to embrace this seed technology – 88% of all field corn is GMO and 94% of all soybeans are GMO – without thought for what may happen if the technology fails to be accepted. Acceptance by American consumers is definitely important – and we know that is failing. 95% of Americans want GMOs labeled. Many are even calling for a ban. Several states have pending legislation that would limit GMO production. Even MORE important and MORE concerning is global rejection of GMOs. Peru has already banned them altogether. 60-something other countries around the world have some kind of restriction on their import. The U.S. and Canada are the last holdouts for trying to avoid labeling GMOs (presumably because the companies who produce them have infiltrated our government to the highest levels – Hillary Clinton, Michael Taylor of the FDA, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on foreverrrrr). The world is rejecting GMOs. If we can’t export our products, we are done for. Yet, agricultural producers are still screaming to defend these products. I can only surmise that a) fear of no longer knowing how to produce without them, and b) being unwilling to find a way to add value to their products are what’s driving that defense. MOST concerning, however, is that if GMOs fail – if GMOs are rejected – if GMOs are proven to NOT be a good technology – we have already begun the process of contaminating all of our seed for these crops. Even the certification for non-GMO is “containing X% or less of GMO material” – because the contamination is so rampant that purity is almost non-existent at this point. If GMO fails, every crop that we have started GMO production for – corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and even GRASS (YES, GRASS) – will fail. That’s an awfully big risk for us to be embracing. Farming has always come with risks. Calculated risks. GMO is a bad bet at this point.
So there you have it. My personal reasons for being both a farm wife and a dreaded anti-GMO activist. I welcome opposing thoughts and respectful debate. I’ve heard it all, so anything you want to throw at me from the other side, we can chat about. I do not fault those of you on the pro-GMO side, though I do believe you have been misled, and I encourage you to do some deeper digging. We have been conditioned as farmers to believe that these companies have our best interests in mind. They don’t. They are exploiting farmers for a quick buck, and at whatever cost to consumers, farmers, and the environment that may be. They are CHEMICAL companies – not agriculture companies. And these products are not godsends. They are suspicious at best, and dangerous at worst.
Awaiting the neg reps that will surely come for posting "opinion" LOL....
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Good.
I can indeed tie all those who are against GMO with anti-freedom movements. And there is no such thing as a leftist who is not terrible. I'm all about diversity, but not when it's based on fear and ignorance.
^^^^ What a moron you are....
Thanks for the neg rep I knew that would come from you.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
• No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
• No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
• Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
• Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
• See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.
5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.
• No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
• The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
• No posting of graphically offensive material, use links with warnings.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989
Thanks, but she violated all those, many times over, a long time ago and still does... so for everyone but her that applies 100%.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Every "point" in the article has been discussed and rebutted. That is the very definition of low value posting.
You and yours want to government to outlaw technology that has done nothing except make food cheaper and more available. This bitch knows that the multi-billion dollar organic business makes it's money pandering to idiots. The more idiots she can create, the more profit she will reap.That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn.
I have no problem with consumer demand, but when it's driven by people who are clearly and openly lying to us, who are counting on us to be the most uneducated Neanderthals imaginable, then that's where it should stop.
Demand what you want, but using the force of democracy in some bizarre attempt to try to halt modern technology is not a liberty position, and that's what side you're on. If you do not think I will come back at you with everything I have, then you clearly do not know me.
It was a blog post... not an article. It was relevant insight to this thread from someone who is living it, on their own land.... no matter your "opinion"
I know who you are from your character on this forum... sounds like itch.... Corporatism is not liberty...
Yes, buyers (manufacturers) demand cheaper ingredients for their products... consumers want to save money too, but are waking up to this mistake and you hate it...That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
If you believe that every point in the article has been rebutted then please share with us the source of your claim. Thank you.
Don't talk about it. Be about it. We love to learn. Bring it......If you do not think I will come back at you with everything I have, then you clearly do not know me.
Oh, hold on...wait...need to put my helmet back on. OK...let's go...
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-12-2014 at 05:24 PM.
Colorado Supreme Court OKs Ballot Title on GMO Labeling Initiative
For more information visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org, https://www.facebook.com/RightToKnowColorado
Despite a challenge by conventional grocery interests, the Colorado Supreme Court on March 13 affirmed Right to Know Colorado’s ballot title to label GMO foods, clearing the way to begin collecting the 86,105 signatures needed for a 2014 statewide ballot measure.
In overturning a major challenge by mainstream biotech, pesticide and grocery interests to a statewide GMO labeling ballot initiative, the Colorado State Supreme Court on March 13, 2014, affirmed the title for Ballot Initiative #48 to label the presence of genetically modified foods, commonly called GMOs, on food packaging. In doing so the Colorado Supreme Court turned away a challenge to the title of Right to Know Colorado’s GMO ballot initiative.
The Supreme Court ruling allows the Right to Know Colorado campaign, a grassroots effort established by local residents to achieve mandatory labeling of GMOs in foods, to begin circulating petitions for signatures to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot. Colorado requires 86,105 valid signatures to be submitted by early August to place an initiative on the ballot, according to Rick Ridder of Denver-based RBI Strategies and Research, political advisor to the Right to Know Colorado campaign. The campaign plans to partner with local farmers, farmers markets, moms, faith-based organizations, natural, organic and non-GMO food retailers, and other health, sustainability and consumer advocacy organizations to gather the signatures needed.
“We are pleased that the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the GMO labeling ballot title, and we look forward to bringing a GMO labeling initiative before the voters of Colorado this fall. Coloradans have the right to know what is in their food, and to make purchasing decisions for their families based on knowing whether their foods are genetically engineered, and we believe they will have that opportunity after November,” said Larry Cooper, one of the proponents of the Right to Know Colorado initiative.
Sri Lanka Bans Monsanto Herbicide Citing Deadly Link To Kidney Disease
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...idney-disease/
Sri Lanka has decided to completely ban glyphosate from their country, it’s the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. In doing so they join a growing list of countries that have/are doing the same. The ban comes out of concern that the chemical may be linked to a fatal kidney disease that could kill agricultural workers. Glyphosate was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s, and it is the most widely used herbicide in the world.
A chronic kidney disease has been affecting poor farming regions all over the world, and a new study that was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health suggests that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidney once mixed with “hard” water or metals like cadmium and arsenic. These metals often exist naturally in the soil or are added via the fertilizer.(0)(6)
“An investigation carried out by medical specialists and scientists has revealed that kidney disease was mainly caused by glyphosate. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has ordered the immediate removal of glyphosate from the local market soon after he was told of the contents of the report.” (8)
The new study also noted that even the World Health Organization (WHO) found that Chronic Kidney Disease (CKDU) is caused by exposure to pesticides.
“Researchers point out that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. They believe that 12 to 15 years of exposure to “low concentration kidney-damaging compounds” along with their accumulation in the body led to the appearance of CKDU in the mid-90s.” (7)
When you ingest Roundup, or glyphosate, you are altering the chemistry of your body. It’s unnatural, and the body doesn’t resonate with it. Scientists have demonstrated that glyphosate interrupts the CYP pathway. CYP enzymes have many important functions. They are critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. (1)
Another report linked glyphosate to birth defects. The report provides a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting the serious health hazards posed by glyphosate and roundup herbicide formulations.(2)(3)
Blackmail? U.S. Tells El Salvador to Buy U.S. GMO Seeds or Lose Millions in Aid
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/bla...n-aid-funding/
There is no spoon.
Relevant reading - Monsanto in US Foreign Policy (RPF thread)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Foreign-Policy
US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto's GMO seeds...
As one of the preconditions to authorizing close to $300 million in aid, the United States is pressuring El Salvador to purchase genetically modified seeds from Monsanto instead of non-GM seeds from local farmers.
According to Sustainable Pulse, a website covering developments related to genetically modified organisms and sustainable agriculture, the US will reportedly withhold $277 million in aid through the Millennium Challenge Compact if El Salvador refuses to purchase GM seeds from the biotech company Monsanto.
The website states that the stalled aid package was originally put on hold in late 2013, when it was revealed that Millennium Challenge Corporation would not deliver funds to the country unless “specific” economic and environmental reforms were made. Apparently, one of those is related to the purchase of GMO seeds.
“I would like to tell the U.S. Ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,”CESTA president Ricardo Navarro said, adding that the move would hurt the local economy and only benefit US companies.
Navarro specifically singled out Monsanto for criticism as well, saying, “There is a harmful corporation on the planet called Monsanto … it is truly disturbing that the U.S. is trying to promote them.”
In Europe, too, Monsanto’s GM seeds have garnered criticism. In March, France banned the growth and sale of the company’s insect-repelling maize seed MON 810, just a few days before it was revealed that insects in the US were developing resistance to the crop.
The comments from Navarro also arrive as Monsanto is under fire in several South American countries, including El Salvador and Brazil. As RT reported previously, El Salvador passed legislation in September 2013 banning glyphosate, used in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides, as well as dozens of other agricultural chemicals.
Similar proposals are being considered in Brazil, where the country’s prosecutor general recently urged the National Health Surveillance Agency to “reevaluate the toxicity of eight active ingredients suspected of causing damage to human health and the environment,” including glyphosate and seven other chemicals.
As for why glyphosate is coming under such heavy scrutiny, new research has indicated that while the chemical is not as dangerous on its own, it becomes extremely toxic to humans once it mixes with natural metals found in soil.
Meanwhile, other reports have linked glyphosate to the outburst of a fatal kidney disease that has killed thousands of people in El Salvador and Sri Lanka, and could also help explain similar situations in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and India.
Vermont’s landmark GMO-labelling law target of lawsuit by food trade groups...
Continued - Vermont’s landmark GMO-labelling law target of lawsuit by food trade groups
A group of four national trade organizations sued the state of Vermont over its new law requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients, scheduled to go into effect in July 2016.
Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association (SFA), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) say that food made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are safe and do not need to be specially labeled. The Vermont legislature passed the bill in April, and Gov. Peter Shumlin (D-Vt.) signed it into law at the beginning of May.
"I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food. The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of this bill," he said in a statement after the bill passed.
Legislators knew that major food companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co - the leading producers of GMO crops - were likely to challenge the law in courts. Attorney General William Sorrell said he advised lawmakers while they deliberated the bill that it would invite a lawsuit from affected companies, "and it would be a heck of a fight, but we would zealously defend the law," he noted Thursday, according to the Burlington Free Press.
To defend the legislation, Vermont allocated a $1.5 million legal defense fund in the measure, to be paid for with settlements won by the state.
Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes
Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes - See more at: http://livefreelivenatural.com/watch....83JbrixX.dpuf
Like this hasn't been posted before.
ANd note that he can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions which means it's bull$#@!. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it isn't bull$#@!. Because it is 100% absolutely and entirely bull$#@!.
God, I hate the liberals in this thread and on this forum. Funny how they never miss a post in "Russia Today" but totally ignore Reason Magazine.
Challenge Highlights Flaws in Hawaii's Anti-GMO LawBig government loving bastards. They claim they only want more and more testing, then pass laws prohibiting private property from being used for testing?The law, passed late last year, bans growing and field testing of nearly all GMO crops. The anonymous papaya farmer argues that the law "sharply conflicts with federal and state law."
While the Hawaii ordinance exempts GMO papaya farmers—because, well, papayas!—it requires them to register annually at a cost of $100 for every farmed location,explains Hawaii land use attorney Robert Thomas.
"Hawaii was the site of one of the first great successes of crop biotechnology," writes Bailey. "In the 1990s, the Hawaiian papaya industry was saved by the creation of a genetically enhanced variety modified to resist the ringspot virus that was then devastating growers."In an excellent article earlier this year that detailed the path to passage for the anti-GMO law in Hawaii, New York Times reporter Amy Harmon referred to the GMO debate as "a subject in which popular beliefs often do not reflect scientific evidence."
Science need not drive law and policy. I prefer fewer laws and policies, and would prefer that individual freedom be the first concern of any lawmaker. But if we must have laws and policies—particularly those impacting science—then they must be driven by science.
Not stupid liberal bullies who don't have a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, to back up a single thing they demand from the rest of us. The world, and the forums, would be better without all of you.
It is YOU who hasn't a shred of evidence to back up your bull$#@! assertions- except government approved and backed bull$#@!. Government approved "science" is suddenly valuable when it supports your favorite Big Corps.
You accuse others of exactly how you operate Miss Neocon, all the while pretending to be for freedom.
There is no spoon.
Personally, I wouldn't line my cyber bird cage with Reason Magazine. It's an educated choice.
Dr. Huber is a Professor of Plant Pathology. Please provide a source that would support your claim that his expertise in this discussion is false relative to the discovery of new organism and crop disease, livestock infertility and threats to U.S. food and agriculture and as a result of these products. Thank you.ANd note that he can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up his assertions which means it's bull$#@!. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it isn't bull$#@!. Because it is 100% absolutely and entirely bull$#@!.
Originally Posted by libertyjam
Watch a Professor of Plant Biology Destroy Roundup in 3 Minutes
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-27-2014 at 11:47 PM.
GMO-labeling movement poised for ballot initiative in Colorado...
Continued - GMO-labeling movement poised for ballot initiative in ColoradoSupporters for the labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in Colorado delivered a petition on Monday with about twice the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative to appear before voters in November.
Right to Know Colorado, the group backing the labeling effort, collected more than 170,000 signatures on the petition, according to the KDVR. A petition in Colorado is required to have 86,105 valid signatures from registered state voters for ballot initiative approval.
The ballot initiative would allow voters to decide on the explicit labeling of any product containing genetically-engineered ingredients sold in the state.
The Colorado Secretary of State’s office now has 30 days to verify the signatures.
Vermont recently passed legislation making the state the first to require GMO labels on its food. That regulation is expected to go into effect in July 2016, though the law is already the target of legal challenges from opponents.
In other states, initial polling support for labeling cratered under what was reported to be heavy spending by the likes of DuPont and Monsanto. Both California and Washington state considered labels in recent years but the proposals ultimately failed after millions of dollars of corporate spending entered the equation.
Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo (Kan.) has introduced a bill in Congress that would prohibit all states from implementing their own labeling laws...
Aside - Biotech, pesticide and grocery corporations challenged the measure, however the Colorado Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of "Colorado Right to Know," allowing supporters to move forward in their attempts to land the initiative on the November 2014 ballot.
As of May 14, 2014, there were 84 bills in 29 states regarding the labeling of GMOs. Efforts for required labeling and bands of genetically modified organisms have been a growing issue in American politics at the state and local level. More than a million people signed a petition to the Food and Drug Administration asking it to label GMOs, which was the most signatures of any petition in the agency’s history.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-05-2014 at 04:11 PM.
The Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Measure 92 is on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. The measure would mandate the labeling of certain foodstuffs that were produced with or contain genetically modified organisms.
An initiated state statute, also known as an initiative statute, is a new law that a state adopts via the ballot initiative process. The most common form of initiated state statute is when groups collect signatures and once those signatures are collected, election officials place the measure on the ballot for a vote. A less common form is the indirect initiated state statute. While there are important differences between an initiated state statute and an initiated constitutional amendment, they are not always clearly distinguished, and often both are referred to as simply "initiatives" or "propositions."
22 states allow citizens to proposed new state statutes via initiative.
Maui GMO ban passes...
http://www.kitv.com/politics/maui-vo...turns/29542916
The first ballots to be counted show 58 percent of voters oppose the ban. But, by the third printout, there were 50 percent "yes" votes. It appears that the initiative has passed.
Maui is home to farms owned by national companies like Monsanto and a Dow Chemical subsidiary, which produce new varieties of genetically engineered seeds
Previously...
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-05-2014 at 11:53 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us