Nov 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm #1309526
It's failing at the moment but there's still time for it to turn around. I saw a lot of emotion and propaganda surrounding the topic of GMO foods (from both sides) as the campaign marched on but very little from either party in the way of scientific data. I voted for it not in opposition to GMO foods but with the the hope that this would allow for consumers to make an informed choice.
Franklin County is primarily an agricultural region and the measure failed there by 75%. Looks like the farmers have spoken.
Thoughts?Nov 6, 2013 at 8:24 am #2041770
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
I'm tired of watching "No on 522" commercials : )
I hate how that and the previous measure to allow selling alcohol at public stores are so influenced by people that have a selfish interest in the outcome.
I don't think they should be allowed to run commercials on TV. Just part of our "best government money can buy".
I think GMO food is fairly safe. We've always genetically modified plants. Wild corn and wheat and potatoes and carrots and… are inedible.
There was a Scientific American article about GMO food. They argued it's generally safe. New method replaces only a few genes so may actually be safer. But, they acknowledge some possible problems, and any scientist that expresses any doubt in GMO food are labeled kooks. They said that any new product including GMO food should be tested better before putting into human use.
Same thing with flouride in drinking water, global warming,… any scientist that expresses any doubt in the established position is called a kook.Nov 6, 2013 at 8:35 am #2041774
@kat_pLocale: Pacific Coast
From Jerry's reply I am, once again, very happy not have had a television ( other than one that just plays DVDs) for almost 20 years now. Commercials are bad enough, political "commercials" have got to be the worst. To think that many voters make up their minds based on those ads is scary.Nov 6, 2013 at 9:09 am #2041786
just Justin WhitsonMember
I don't think there have been any long term, in depth studies on whether or not GMO is safe for human consumption.
Let's not forget that the corporations pushing for GMO, like Monsanto are HUGE, mega corporations that have a lot of money and influence at their disposable. Even scientists and studies can be bought off.
If GMO didn't have such potential to contaminate non GMO crops, i would be much more ok with it, "Sure, eat your franken foods as long as i have access to non franken foods.."
However, clearly cross contamination whether accidental or secretly forced is a huge problem. Also, besides that, it seems that the intentions of corporations like Monsanto are pretty sinister in that they seem to have a plan to eventually replace all natural seeds and foods with GMO versions. Why, more profit, a GMO crop or seed, or whatever can be copyrighted and legally controlled.
This is why they have went to lengths to develop "terminator seeds". Seeds that produce plants/crops that do not reproduce viable seeds for the next crop. Why? So the farmer has to keep buying seed from them every year. If this is not akin to pure Evil, i don't know what is. Food and water are our most basic and important necessities and we should not be allowing huge corporations to tamper with these for their own nefarious, greed and profit driven ends. I really feel like yelling right now, but i won't.
Jerry, sometimes i wonder about you. On the surface you seem to be liberal and somewhat progressive, but at other times you just say the darnedest, pro government, pro system and corporations things. Hard to reconcile the two aspects sometimes.Nov 6, 2013 at 9:39 am #2041796
@retiredjerryLocale: Oregon and Washington
That Scientific American article pointed out the GMO crops produce 25% more food, which reduces hunger, and that benefit exceeds any negative of the genetic modifications
GMO foods could be like "block buster drugs" for pharmaceuticals. Make a version that's slightly different. Phony up some studies that show it's better. Use marketing and monoploy techniques to get widespread use. Charge more for it to get profits.
I'm pretty liberal, but more than that, I like to base policy on data that show stuff is better for the country as a whole. Sometimes I'll bend over backwards accomodating some right wing position and be less respectful of someone with a liberal position, but I try not to : )Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 am #2041824
@owareLocale: Steptoe Butte
Looks like the farmers have spoken. "
Depends on the farmers. Wheat GMO's are outlawed, so wheat farmers tend to like the labeling.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.