I522 - Pros and Cons

[Crux]

May contain genetically modified

[Pete_H]

Apparently, its not consensus whether GMO foods are harmful to your health or not:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/there-no-scientific-consensus-gmo-safety

 

GMO foods most likely were produced using lots of pesticides (obviously); and there are potential allergen concerns, such as a shellfish gene put into corn (for example).

 

Therefore, whether food is GMO or not is not arbitrary information. Of course, there are other arguments articulated in this thread that cut against this initiative.

[tvashtarkatena]

I always thought it was not legal in the USA to label food as "non GMO" or "GMO free". Something to do with "food disparagement" laws. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I've been watching too many documentaries about how bad our industrial food production is and can no longer keep the facts straight.

 

This is not true, and there have been no libel challenges to GMO Free labeling to date. Such a challenge would be unlikely - given that 'peanut free' and a host of other 'xxxx free' labels are commonplace, and that such labels make no direct critic or health claims against producers or their products. Currently, a minority of the states have food disparagement laws.

 

That's not to say such laws should not be a concern. Any law which limits free speech should be considered very carefully. Our food industy's impact on the environment is as big a disaster as our current state of health - largely caused by same, so I would expect that industry to use every means to defend itself against this emerging realization.

 

Suing for a GMO Free label probably won't be one of these action, IMO.

Edited October 25, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

I'm not familiar with caselaw in this area but its surprising to me labeling requirements are a free speech issue. Doesn't seem like a restriction or limit, rather a mandatory addition or addendum. I suppose this issues been litigated to death already.

[bstach]

Yes, thank you Rob and Tvash for the correction on that. I found this web site that provides some analysis of voluntary labeling

 

And the Wiki page on Food libel

[rob]

Apparently, its not consensus whether GMO foods are harmful to your health or not:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/there-no-scientific-consensus-gmo-safety

 

GMO foods most likely were produced using lots of pesticides (obviously); and there are potential allergen concerns, such as a shellfish gene put into corn (for example).

 

actually many GMO products may require fewer pesticides, depending on what they were modified to do (some plants are modified to become more pest resistant)

 

anyway, some people claim there isn't consensus on climate change, either (there is). Sure, the pro-522 people can dig up some quack scientists to deny consensus the same that FW can drag up some crackpot to deny climate change. But that doesn't make it true. Hell, there are still some "scientists" who claim vaccines cause autism. The presence of a few dissenting voices doesn't mean there is no consensus.

 

But the reality is that in more than 20+ years of genetic modification, not a SINGLE peer-reviewed study has indicated any overt safety concern with GMO products. Every major scientific organization ON THE PLANET has confirmed this. Including the European Commission, which asserts that not only are GMOs safe, but that are as safe as conventional plant breeding technologies (selective breeding, etc).

 

Try a better source for your research:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/29/are-gmos-safe-global-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/

 

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm not familiar with caselaw in this area but its surprising to me labeling requirements are a free speech issue. Doesn't seem like a restriction or limit, rather a mandatory addition or addendum. I suppose this issues been litigated to death already.

 

Labeling requirements constitute compelled commercial speech, and have been at the center of several free speech cases. Here's a piece about the FDA's new requirement to add graphio anti smoking warnings on ciggies:

 

linky

 

From Citizens United to this, folks often don't consider the idea that the government must provide some proof of harm when attempt to either restrict or compel speech. Regardless of how you feel about corporate campaign spending or smoking, you really want to think carefully before wishing for a world where the government can so limit speech without having to provide a compelling reason, with supporting data, for that action.

 

Think about that world for a bit.

[Kimmo]

a humanoid might find this interesting regarding some salient issues surrounding GM foods:

 

link

 

 

oh and by the way, YES on 522.

 

Vote once, vote often!

[rob]

I believe that most people who don't want to eat GMOs *also* don't want to eat pesticides. I mean, it's hard for me to believe that there are people who are all, "I'm A-OK with toxic pesticides but don't gimme none of that GMO stuff," so I have a hard time understanding who this label will cater too.

 

Assuming pesticides are worse than GMOs, it seems rational to me that anyone who doesn't want to consume GMOs is probably buying organic. Are there really people who are like, "please give me non-organic pesticide-laden food as long as it's not genetically modified" -- and if so, do you think it's a good idea to encourage that kind of misguided scientific illiteracy?

[Kimmo]

"There's another issue here with corporate control of the food supply. . . . We're headed toward a time when there will be just a few corporations that control the food supply from the farm to the plate. And that is not in the best interest of a strong world economy. It's not in the best interests ultimately of healthy food and healthy people. . . . "

 

 

Knowing what's in our food is necessary for making decisions regarding the above scenario.

[rob]

"There's another issue here with corporate control of the food supply. . . . We're headed toward a time when there will be just a few corporations that control the food supply from the farm to the plate. And that is not in the best interest of a strong world economy. It's not in the best interests ultimately of healthy food and healthy people. . . . "

 

 

Knowing what's in our food is necessary for making decisions regarding the above scenario.

 

So many lols in this, I don't know where to start.

[Kimmo]

[Kimmo]

Start like this:

 

"My name is Rob."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"There's another issue here with corporate control of the food supply. . . . We're headed toward a time when there will be just a few corporations that control the food supply from the farm to the plate. And that is not in the best interest of a strong world economy. It's not in the best interests ultimately of healthy food and healthy people. . . . "

 

 

Knowing what's in our food is necessary for making decisions regarding the above scenario.

 

So many lols in this, I don't know where to start.

 

DON'T LAUGH ROBBIE - A STORM IS A BREWIN'!!!!

 

[rob]

OMG GENETICALLY-MODIFIED VACCINES CAUSE FRANKEN-AUTISM!

 

[Crux]

I think the pertinent question about food supply in regard to the role of GMOs will not be about whether or not GMO foods are nutritionally inferior or harmful for human consumption--they are neither.

 

The compelling question is this: Does the use of GMOs to enhance crop production over the short term actually (and paradoxically) present a threat to the viability of global agribusiness over the long term?

[prole]

 

From Citizens United to this, folks often don't consider the idea that the government must provide some proof of harm when attempt to either restrict or compel speech. Regardless of how you feel about corporate campaign spending or smoking, you really want to think carefully before wishing for a world where the government can so limit speech without having to provide a compelling reason, with supporting data, for that action.

 

Think about that world for a bit.

 

I don't want the government to restrict speech, vast amounts of money from private individuals and corporations to politicians, yes please.

[Crux]

 

Proposition 1

 

Ballot Title

The City of Seattle’s Proposition 1 concerns creation of a system of publicly financed council election campaigns.

 

If approved, this proposition would publicly fund campaigns for Seattle City Council. Candidates who raise 600 individual contributions of at least $10 qualify for the program. Contributions up to $50 to qualifying candidates are matched 6 public dollars for every dollar, up to $210,000. Participating candidates may only spend $140,000 in the primary and $245,000 overall, except when an opponent spends more. Approval authorizes six years of additional property taxes, with $2,000,000 (approximately $0.0164/$1000 assessed value) collected in 2014.

 

Should this proposition be approved?

 

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . .

[JayB]

Rob, you're just spewing more of that smokescreen BS. There is nothing in the proposed label or the initiative that defines GMO as bad. It is about information, and you come off as just another "expert" who's decided what we don't need to know.

 

Now, there are some reasons why one might choose to not support GMO food, and not just because one is a silly hippie who thinks it will make them grow feathers. You think Monsanto is promoting their GMO seed so they can sell LESS of their Roundup product? Pesticide application is up since the introduction of GMO seeds, in part due to the expansion of glycophosphate resistant weeds, caused by increased use of Roundup. Do you believe reducing genetic diversity of seed stock is a good thing? You think contamination of other strains by GMO plants via pollination is a plus? You are aware that Monsanto uses this as a justification to sue farmers who have been contaminated by their neighbor's plantings, right? Oh, and there have been deaths associated with GMO bacteria, and some studies have shown issues with GMO foods in cows and rats, so it may not be all sunshine and roses like you say.

 

On the bright side, if 522 passes, you can show your support by only buying GMO containing foods.

 

Off:

 

I don't have the time to hyperlink to the vast compendium of publications issued by institutions ranging from the NSF to the European Food Safety authority that have surveyed the known universe of credible scientific literature on the specific risks that arise from inserting DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal that humans eat and haven't found anything even remotely worrisome and/or plausible enough in terms of risks to warrant prohibiting the practice - but hopefully it will suffice to say that they have issued their judgments and determined that the risks to humans, the greater biosphere, etc fall somewhere between infinitessimal and zero for the set of actual food crops that actual companies have generated for that purpose.

 

The science simply doesn't support imposing significant (in the aggregate) costs on everyone who consumes or produces food in the state of Washington or anywhere else on the basis of any scientific standard of safety. It just doesn't. If you have other objections - such as disliking Monsanto, modern agriculture, large farms, etc, etc, etc that's all perfectly fine, but those are all objections rooted in philosophical/ideological grounds - not science.

 

I have no problem with anyone who has ideological, spiritual, or other reasons restricting their diet in any fashion they like as long as they're willing to do so without imposing the costs on people who don't share their particular ideological commitments. Folks who want to restrict their diet to kosher/hallal foods - which is a set of beliefs about food safety and purity that has equal scientific standing with the concerns that you are raising about GMO crops (sorry man, but it's true) - have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is force everyone who chooses not to abide by their taboos to slap a "Non Kosher" "Non Hallal" or "Non Whatever" label on every food product that they grow, buy, sell, or eat.

 

Anyone who wants to confine their diet to non-GMO crops for political/ideological/philosophical/spiritual reasons should do the same.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Proposition 1

 

Ballot Title

The City of Seattle’s Proposition 1 concerns creation of a system of publicly financed council election campaigns.

 

If approved, this proposition would publicly fund campaigns for Seattle City Council. Candidates who raise 600 individual contributions of at least $10 qualify for the program. Contributions up to $50 to qualifying candidates are matched 6 public dollars for every dollar, up to $210,000. Participating candidates may only spend $140,000 in the primary and $245,000 overall, except when an opponent spends more. Approval authorizes six years of additional property taxes, with $2,000,000 (approximately $0.0164/$1000 assessed value) collected in 2014.

 

Should this proposition be approved?

 

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

I strongly support this one.

 

Publicly funded elections are probably the only constitutional antidote to a post Citizens United world. Many studies have shown that being far more heavily funded than your opponent often does not provide an overwhelming advantage - 60 millino in shitty commercials doesn't seem to help any more than 20 million of same. Being underfunded - below a certain critical threshold, very often guarantees defeat, however. The idea is to provide all candidates that minimum ticket to ride.

 

perhaps paradoxically, I also strongly agree with the Citizens United decision. Unlike the way its been popularly characterized - it was a classic, cut and dry free speech case. At issue was about an uncoordinated (with any campaign) non profit that showed a movie about Hilz (it could have been made for free and the case wouldn't have changed) within a 'blackout' period specified by McCain Feingold - within 3 months of an election.

 

The problem is that Congress didn't even bother to attempt to show harm when it restricted this kind of speech in passing McCain Feingold. Well, our constitution requires that test to be given if speech is to be restricted, and we should want to keep it that way.

 

Otherwise, Congress can restrict speech as it sees fit - based on any crazy theory, without showing proof of harm. It's done it in the past - so there's plenty of reason to be wary of granting that or any governing body such power over our expression.

 

The consequences of Citizens United, intended or unintended, require not introduction. Publicly financed elections are probably the best cure for too much concentration of influence regarding elections.

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I agree with Jay here. The GMO issue is similar to Citizens United in that we should rely on credible data to support any government mandate or restriction of any kind. We've been fighting a disastrous Drug War for 42 years now based on shitty, baseless ideas. Do we really want more of the same kind of governing process?

 

Many folks who support GMO labeling rail against conservatives for abandoning, and even attacking, science in their decisions making. Well, you can't have it both ways.

 

"More information is better than less" is the most common argument I hear. That statement makes several very important assumptions.

 

1) The information comes for free. This certainly won't. It's may be entirely unfunded (a classic cynical move to get it passed). 'a small, up front cost'...for every single food producer that does business in WA. Please.

3) The information therefore comes without an opportunity cost. Unfunded means the substantial costs of implementation and enforcement will come out of the general fund in a state with a huge deficit. Do we really need this new hippy toy (and, let's face it, that's exactly what this is) when we can't even pay for education? I don't think so.

2) The information is substantiated and therefore useful enough for a mandate - ie, the harms are significant to warrant such draconian action. Give the actual science here...um...no.

Edited October 26, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

Rob, you're just spewing more of that smokescreen BS. There is nothing in the proposed label or the initiative that defines GMO as bad. It is about information, and you come off as just another "expert" who's decided what we don't need to know.

 

Now, there are some reasons why one might choose to not support GMO food, and not just because one is a silly hippie who thinks it will make them grow feathers. You think Monsanto is promoting their GMO seed so they can sell LESS of their Roundup product? Pesticide application is up since the introduction of GMO seeds, in part due to the expansion of glycophosphate resistant weeds, caused by increased use of Roundup. Do you believe reducing genetic diversity of seed stock is a good thing? You think contamination of other strains by GMO plants via pollination is a plus? You are aware that Monsanto uses this as a justification to sue farmers who have been contaminated by their neighbor's plantings, right? Oh, and there have been deaths associated with GMO bacteria, and some studies have shown issues with GMO foods in cows and rats, so it may not be all sunshine and roses like you say.

 

On the bright side, if 522 passes, you can show your support by only buying GMO containing foods.

 

Off:

 

I don't have the time to hyperlink to the vast compendium of publications issued by institutions ranging from the NSF to the European Food Safety authority that have surveyed the known universe of credible scientific literature on the specific risks that arise from inserting DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal that humans eat and haven't found anything even remotely worrisome and/or plausible enough in terms of risks to warrant prohibiting the practice - but hopefully it will suffice to say that they have issued their judgments and determined that the risks to humans, the greater biosphere, etc fall somewhere between infinitessimal and zero for the set of actual food crops that actual companies have generated for that purpose.

 

The science simply doesn't support imposing significant (in the aggregate) costs on everyone who consumes or produces food in the state of Washington or anywhere else on the basis of any scientific standard of safety. It just doesn't. If you have other objections - such as disliking Monsanto, modern agriculture, large farms, etc, etc, etc that's all perfectly fine, but those are all objections rooted in philosophical/ideological grounds - not science.

 

I have no problem with anyone who has ideological, spiritual, or other reasons restricting their diet in any fashion they like as long as they're willing to do so without imposing the costs on people who don't share their particular ideological commitments. Folks who want to restrict their diet to kosher/hallal foods - which is a set of beliefs about food safety and purity that has equal scientific standing with the concerns that you are raising about GMO crops (sorry man, but it's true) - have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is force everyone who chooses not to abide by their taboos to slap a "Non Kosher" "Non Hallal" or "Non Whatever" label on every food product that they grow, buy, sell, or eat.

 

Anyone who wants to confine their diet to non-GMO crops for political/ideological/philosophical/spiritual reasons should do the same.

 

I don't see you addressing anything specific that offwhite wrote, since he wasn't addressing gm safety per se,

 

But:

 

out of the vast compendium of publications issued, can you link to one that you have found to be the most rigorous in its methodology for ascertaining GMO safety?

Edited October 26, 2013 by Kimmo

[JayB]

Rob, you're just spewing more of that smokescreen BS. There is nothing in the proposed label or the initiative that defines GMO as bad. It is about information, and you come off as just another "expert" who's decided what we don't need to know.

 

Now, there are some reasons why one might choose to not support GMO food, and not just because one is a silly hippie who thinks it will make them grow feathers. You think Monsanto is promoting their GMO seed so they can sell LESS of their Roundup product? Pesticide application is up since the introduction of GMO seeds, in part due to the expansion of glycophosphate resistant weeds, caused by increased use of Roundup. Do you believe reducing genetic diversity of seed stock is a good thing? You think contamination of other strains by GMO plants via pollination is a plus? You are aware that Monsanto uses this as a justification to sue farmers who have been contaminated by their neighbor's plantings, right? Oh, and there have been deaths associated with GMO bacteria, and some studies have shown issues with GMO foods in cows and rats, so it may not be all sunshine and roses like you say.

 

On the bright side, if 522 passes, you can show your support by only buying GMO containing foods.

 

Off:

 

I don't have the time to hyperlink to the vast compendium of publications issued by institutions ranging from the NSF to the European Food Safety authority that have surveyed the known universe of credible scientific literature on the specific risks that arise from inserting DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal that humans eat and haven't found anything even remotely worrisome and/or plausible enough in terms of risks to warrant prohibiting the practice - but hopefully it will suffice to say that they have issued their judgments and determined that the risks to humans, the greater biosphere, etc fall somewhere between infinitessimal and zero for the set of actual food crops that actual companies have generated for that purpose.

 

The science simply doesn't support imposing significant (in the aggregate) costs on everyone who consumes or produces food in the state of Washington or anywhere else on the basis of any scientific standard of safety. It just doesn't. If you have other objections - such as disliking Monsanto, modern agriculture, large farms, etc, etc, etc that's all perfectly fine, but those are all objections rooted in philosophical/ideological grounds - not science.

 

I have no problem with anyone who has ideological, spiritual, or other reasons restricting their diet in any fashion they like as long as they're willing to do so without imposing the costs on people who don't share their particular ideological commitments. Folks who want to restrict their diet to kosher/hallal foods - which is a set of beliefs about food safety and purity that has equal scientific standing with the concerns that you are raising about GMO crops (sorry man, but it's true) - have every right to do so. What they don't have the right to do is force everyone who chooses not to abide by their taboos to slap a "Non Kosher" "Non Hallal" or "Non Whatever" label on every food product that they grow, buy, sell, or eat.

 

Anyone who wants to confine their diet to non-GMO crops for political/ideological/philosophical/spiritual reasons should do the same.

 

I don't see you addressing anything specific that offwhite wrote, since he wasn't addressing gm safety per se,

 

But:

 

out of the vast compendium of publications issued, can you link to one that you have found to be the most rigorous in its methodology for ascertaining GMO safety?

 

 

 

I can't make an informed comment on which is most rigorous since and I haven't read any more than a handful of them, but the link below is a good place to go if you want handy access to a big chunk of them.

 

 

 

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

 

This paper is probably also worth reading:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

 

It's not comprehensive, but this guy's explanation of what BT crops are, how they work, and why they aren't a hazard to humans and/or the environment is worth reading.

 

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1135

 

This is a good, concise visual summary for people who aren't motivated enough to subject themselves to death-by-PDF.

[Kimmo]

In the face of what you posted above, what do you make of concerns expressed by other scientists, perhaps most notedly by the Union of Concerned Scientists?

 

Here's a link to an interview by someone involved with the organization (please don't let her photo scare you off):

 

scary face

 

I'd like to hear your honest thoughts on the interview.

 

 

And, while I certainly have concerns myself over a technology quite in its infancy being promoted and applied across the board by corporations inherently driven by the profit motive, I'm also interested in the heuristics of this, and any, situation, especially when quotes such as this are used:

 

If an overwhelming majority of experts say something is true, then any sensible non-expert should assume that they are probably right. (from the poster you pinned up.)

 

Who is behind that poster btw? I googled www.axismundionline.com (credit on lower right of poster) and got decent design ideas for our yard, but I couldn't find who is behind it.

[tvashtarkatena]

This issue reminds me of the monorail, when well meaning initiative authors thought it would be a good idea for millions of Washingtonians to take sides on the efficacy of a specific technology, rather than vote for policies that address the broader issue (moving people efficiently from A to B, in that case).

 

I gleefully voted no on the monorail, and we got an on time, on budget light rail system designed and managed by talented professionals - the way it should be. Its REPRESENTATIVE government, after all.

 

Now, initiative authors are asking us to vote for a warning label (that's what it is, not an ingredients label) for a whole range of technologies few of them seem to understand - and waste an enormous amount of precious (unfunded) public money - and far more private money in a faltering economy - to do what, exactly?

 

If activists need not provide proof of harm for their expensive pet projects, and lets face it, that's what this is, where is this going to go?

 

Regarding the actual label or lack thereof, aside from the principle and precedent involved - if my next bag of caramel Bugles has a GMO Inside sticker on the front - andd my nexst box of Nature's HandJob Organic Gojiberry and refined cane juice breafast cereal has GMO Free plastered all over it (newsflash - if you buy 100% Organic, its ALREADY GMO free) I'll...I'll...yawn.

Edited October 27, 2013 by tvashtarkatena