I 522 Breaking News

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Next thing ya know Fairweather will be posting studies that say "DDT is no big deal and there are conflicting studies on whether birds are harmed by it."

 

 

Dude, did you read any of my posts? at all?

 

he should read about DDT, actually... LOL

[prole]

That's be nice, wouldn't it.

Isn't it amazing how the wheel needs to be reinvented every single time there is a discussion on here?

Are you talking about the redundancy of my post, the discussion itself, or....?

 

No, Fairweather read me dead wrong. The underlying reality implicit in the infographic you link to should be a fundamental starting point for any discussion about science and technology in the 21st century in general and any discussion about regulating them in particular. Too often, we're conditioned to think that science and the regulatory regime occur in a vacuum. How many more DDTs, Bee Collapse Disorders, Fukushimas, Deepwater Horizons, namely technologies with potential for regional and even planetary scale catastophe that we, at the time, were assured time and again were safe by regulators and industry scientists (aka the only ones with funding and insider knowledge to study this shit) before we realize that at this point in time, humans don't have the foresight or the political/regulatory infrastructure in place to handle these technologies with the kind of care that's necessary given their potential dangers. As your infographic points out, America isn't ready for the big boy pants when it comes to providing real safeguards.

Edited November 6, 2013 by prole

[Kimmo]

My argument against GMOs (their usurpation of the natural environment) would have presented a stronger case than the one your fear-mongering, dreadlock I-522 friends managed to concoct.

 

Again, do you think mandatory childhood vaccinations are a good idea?

 

not sure why you keep going on about vaccinations, but yes, I saw you post your ideas of how to run a more effective campaign.

 

Curious, if the aspect you wished for had been the campaign's central focus, would it have troubled you enough to vote for a labeling initiative?

[Kimmo]

Did anyone find the excerpt below interesting the first time around?

 

 

Brian Martison (Nature, 2005) found that one-third of 3,000 surveyed scientists, drawn primarily from the biological sciences, admitted to behaving unethically in their research, and 15.5% of them specifically admitted that “they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source”.

 

Considering how difficult such an admission would be, even in a confidential survey, this may be a conservative estimate.

 

Something to consider: Monsanto does its own "scientific" safety testing.

 

If, from a broad sampling across the biological sciences spectrum we find 1 out of 3 scientists willing to admit to "behaving unethically", and nearly 1 out of 6 changing experiments or results due to "pressure from a funding source", what are we to think of Monsanto's in-house process of safety testing the GMOs we as a society then eat?

 

[Fairweather]

Prole, I stand corrected. Touche.

[Kimmo]

So the Grocery Manufacturer's Association (meaning Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Pepsi, Nabisco etc etc) made their statement about the seemingly impending defeat of I522:

 

 

Because a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling laws would be confusing and costly to consumers, GMA will advocate for a federal solution that will protect consumers by ensuring that the FDA, America's leading food safety authority, sets national standards for the safety and labeling of products made with GMO ingredients.

 

 

AWESOME! Why pay all this cash at the state level to defeat any GMO labeling initiatives when you can go directly to the FDA and get them to do it!

 

And why on earth would the FDA do this? Silly question:

 

 

between that position and his current FDA position, Mr. Taylor was employed by Monsanto as Vice President of Public Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

[keenwesh]

I haven't had internet for awhile, so I haven't had the pleasure to follow CC spray.

 

Regarding the fact that the producer pays for safety research on its own products. Who else is going to pay for it? You? me? The government? If the inventor didn't have to foot the bill for getting a GMO approved there'd be many more on the market. The approval process isn't cheap because they have to show the FDA that the products are safe before they can make a cent off of them. Monsanto sells roundup ready and Bt seed because they had the money to demonstrate their safety. Do your own independent analysis, you'll find the exact same thing.

[Kimmo]

In the end, I kinda think that this whole affair wasn't really about I522 at all....

 

I admit to having a deep appreciation for the advertising agency involved on behalf of the anti-522 campaign (Publicis Group). While I'm most likely completely ignorant of any subtleties at work within their approach, the 20 Million Dollars of blunt and repetitious head trauma that I witnessed was probably all that was needed, yes?

 

So, does anyone have anything interesting to say about them?

 

What did their brainstorming sessions look like? What was their goal? How many different spots did they develop for the different geographical areas of WA? What was the main unspoken subtext permeating the entire ad campaign?

 

I think I saw one ad, thanks to not owning a network-receiving television set in our household.

 

But, you gotta hand it to them:

 

National street and telephone polls:

 

93% of americans favor GMO labels.

 

WA initial support for the initiative:

 

~70%?

 

Final Outcome?

 

Congratulations, Publicis Group!

 

 

 

 

[Kimmo]

I haven't had internet for awhile, so I haven't had the pleasure to follow CC spray.

 

Regarding the fact that the producer pays for safety research on its own products. Who else is going to pay for it? You? me? The government? If the inventor didn't have to foot the bill for getting a GMO approved there'd be many more on the market. The approval process isn't cheap because they have to show the FDA that the products are safe before they can make a cent off of them. Monsanto sells roundup ready and Bt seed because they had the money to demonstrate their safety. Do your own independent analysis, you'll find the exact same thing.

 

you're kidding, right? a joke?

 

Haha, good one.

[Crux]

I voted against I-522, not because of any money spent on advertising by the opposition. I know this because I saw and heard literally no advertising against I-522 whatsoever. (I watch almost no television, and no local TV at all, and no radio either.)

 

But the issue did matter to me, so I reflected on how much I hate Monsanto, and I read editorials, and even stopped into the Spray community to read what various familiar voices had to say in this forum. In fact, the only paid-for promotionals I saw were those in favor of 522. But "you guys" still lost the debate, in my view, by a long shot.

 

Take heart. If you can't win the vote of a life-long liberal and environmentalist who hates Monsanto and was subject to absolutely none of your opposition's persuasion (someone like me), then you can know your argument is weak. That means it's all up to you change the outcome--by making a better case--next time around, or by whatever alternative route.

 

But the tantrums expressed in the wake of the I-522 defeat, the juvenile and irrational outrage expressed by proponents on the intellectual spectrum all the way from you to Rachel Maddow, won't translate to a better case. All that's done by such demonstration is to show how sound critical thinking can be absent from the processes of even very smart people. And yes, it may be clearly departed from stupid ones too. Obviously.

 

93% of Americans favor blah blah blah. Good work, that. Later.

[Kimmo]

Take heart. If you can't win the vote of a life-long liberal and environmentalist who hates Monsanto and was subject to absolutely none of your opposition's persuasion (someone like me), then you can know your argument is weak.

 

maybe that says more about you than it does about the argument. sorry.

 

But the tantrums expressed in the wake of the I-522 defeat, the juvenile and irrational outrage expressed by proponents on the intellectual spectrum all the way from you to Rachel Maddow

 

which tantrum?

[Kimmo]

I voted against I-522, not because of any money spent on advertising by the opposition. I know this because I saw and heard literally no advertising against I-522 whatsoever. (I watch almost no television, and no local TV at all, and no radio either.)

 

But the issue did matter to me, so I reflected on how much I hate Monsanto, and I read editorials, and even stopped into the Spray community to read what various familiar voices had to say in this forum. In fact, the only paid-for promotionals I saw were those in favor of 522. But "you guys" still lost the debate, in my view, by a long shot.

 

Take heart. If you can't win the vote of a life-long liberal and environmentalist who hates Monsanto and was subject to absolutely none of your opposition's persuasion (someone like me), then you can know your argument is weak. That means it's all up to you change the outcome--by making a better case--next time around, or by whatever alternative route.

 

But the tantrums expressed in the wake of the I-522 defeat, the juvenile and irrational outrage expressed by proponents on the intellectual spectrum all the way from you to Rachel Maddow, won't translate to a better case. All that's done by such demonstration is to show how sound critical thinking can be absent from the processes of even very smart people. And yes, it may be clearly departed from stupid ones too. Obviously.

 

93% of Americans favor blah blah blah. Good work, that. Later.

 

in all seriousness, i should ask what your misgivings regarding i522 were.

 

i'm sure you're probably sick of the subject, but maybe a quick synopsis? i promise i won't take anything you say as fuel for the furthering of the argument! just genuinely curious.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I voted against I-522, not because of any money spent on advertising by the opposition. I know this because I saw and heard literally no advertising against I-522 whatsoever. (I watch almost no television, and no local TV at all, and no radio either.)

 

But the issue did matter to me, so I reflected on how much I hate Monsanto, and I read editorials, and even stopped into the Spray community to read what various familiar voices had to say in this forum. In fact, the only paid-for promotionals I saw were those in favor of 522. But "you guys" still lost the debate, in my view, by a long shot.

 

Take heart. If you can't win the vote of a life-long liberal and environmentalist who hates Monsanto and was subject to absolutely none of your opposition's persuasion (someone like me), then you can know your argument is weak. That means it's all up to you change the outcome--by making a better case--next time around, or by whatever alternative route.

 

But the tantrums expressed in the wake of the I-522 defeat, the juvenile and irrational outrage expressed by proponents on the intellectual spectrum all the way from you to Rachel Maddow, won't translate to a better case. All that's done by such demonstration is to show how sound critical thinking can be absent from the processes of even very smart people. And yes, it may be clearly departed from stupid ones too. Obviously.

 

93% of Americans favor blah blah blah. Good work, that. Later.

 

POTD

[Kimmo]

except.... he doesn't.....

 

really say anything.

 

 

i'm holding out for the synopsis.

[keenwesh]

I haven't had internet for awhile, so I haven't had the pleasure to follow CC spray.

 

Regarding the fact that the producer pays for safety research on its own products. Who else is going to pay for it? You? me? The government? If the inventor didn't have to foot the bill for getting a GMO approved there'd be many more on the market. The approval process isn't cheap because they have to show the FDA that the products are safe before they can make a cent off of them. Monsanto sells roundup ready and Bt seed because they had the money to demonstrate their safety. Do your own independent analysis, you'll find the exact same thing.

 

you're kidding, right? a joke?

 

Haha, good one.

 

What do you propose as an alternate? Seriously, who should foot the bill?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

i'm holding out for the synopsis.

 

that was the synopsis

[Kimmo]

hmmm, interesting how different people can interpret the same events differently, yes?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Kimmo