Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you KBN!! If nothing else, you have planted an honorific seed.
OD? From this day forth I shall address thee as...
OD:TGL
W the greatest of tongue-in-cheek respect, of course...
Thank you KBN!! If nothing else, you have planted an honorific seed.
OD? From this day forth I shall address thee as...
OD:TGL
W the greatest of tongue-in-cheek respect, of course...
RC
Gee whiz stop with the name calling, The Great Liar is not a nice thing to call anyone.
So does anyone think we can get a vote on just Labeling for foods/drinks sold in Maui at coffee shops, etc. Since the GMO vote went ti*s up as the Brits say.
So does anyone think we can get a vote on just Labeling for foods/drinks sold in Maui at coffee shops, etc. Since the GMO vote went ti*s up as the Brits say.
A vote? No. Not one that would withstand a lawsuit.
Haven't I made this clear enough yet? It's ultimately a First Amendment, Freedom of Speech issue. Just as the Government cannot censor your speech, it also cannot force you to say what you don't want to say. In regards to GMOs that was established as a precedent in 1995 in the Federal Court decision which overturned the Vermont law requiring milk from cows which had been treated with the GM hormone rBGH be labelled.
Voluntary labelling? Sure, have at it. But that doesn't require a vote.
A vote? No. Not one that would withstand a lawsuit.
Haven't I made this clear enough yet? It's ultimately a First Amendment, Freedom of Speech issue. Just as the Government cannot censor your speech, it also cannot force you to say what you don't want to say. In regards to GMOs that was established as a precedent in 1995 in the Federal Court decision which overturned the Vermont law requiring milk from cows which had been treated with the GM hormone rBGH be labelled.
Voluntary labelling? Sure, have at it. But that doesn't require a vote.
Huh, now your arguing that corporations are people? Another hot bad blood topic? Goverment cencoring free speach? Where have you been it happens all the time. You can't yell FIRE in a movie theater! Have your heard of the Patriot Act? But a point you really miss is we are suppose to live in a Democracy, Majority rules unless it really violates the constitution. Not go to pa to work against ma. Special interests are killing our system of dem
A vote? No. Not one that would withstand a lawsuit.
Haven't I made this clear enough yet? It's ultimately a First Amendment, Freedom of Speech issue. Just as the Government cannot censor your speech, it also cannot force you to say what you don't want to say. In regards to GMOs that was established as a precedent in 1995 in the Federal Court decision which overturned the Vermont law requiring milk from cows which had been treated with the GM hormone rBGH be labelled.
Voluntary labelling? Sure, have at it. But that doesn't require a vote.
Excuse me?? Do read the TOS again as I feel perhaps there is some confusion about the level of rudeness that is acceptable.
Warning consumers about potential allergens is common on labels now, guess if there is enough rabble, rabble (channeling South Park now ) companies will start putting more info on their labels.
Warning consumers about potential allergens is common on labels now, guess if there is enough rabble, rabble (channeling South Park now ) companies will start putting more info on their labels.
Do you know what the #1 complaint people have about nutritional labels is now? Too much information. That's why so few actually read them.
In regard to your other comment, I'm sorry if you took my directness as rudeness, but it wasn't meant as a personal comment. And as a matter of fact, once you've been here a little longer you may come to recognize that I am and have always been an advocate for civility and an opponent of rudeness here. Read my status line above.
Rather it was a general comment about the number of people who simply don't get that while popularity of an idea may help get a law passed, it's not the basis for court judgments of Constitutionality. And the matter of mandatory GMO labelling was already decided by the courts in 1995 in overturning the Vermont law. Since then the scientific evidence that GMOs are safe has grown significantly, so it seems increasingly improbable that this precedent will be overcome.
In case you missed it... this massive recent study from UC Davis may not end the public superstition that GMOs are bad, but it appears to me it pretty well dooms any possibility of convincing the courts that there is a compelling need for mandatory labelling, or of banning GMO production. The study this article discusses will undoubtedly be placed in evidence in any court case resulting from new laws.
Quote:
The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study
On the other hand, as I've long said, I think voluntary education and voluntary labelling could end the stalemate. And here's an interesting piece from Forbes which says much the same thing. The key to gaining transparency about GMOs, in my view, is for the opposition to GMOs to ratchet down the inflammatory and misleading propaganda against GMOs which keeps the public fearful and roiled up and the food producers hunkered down in self-defense.
Quote:
To begin with, GMOs so far appear to be healthy for human consumption. “Indeed, the science is quite clear,” said the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2012. “Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” The data behind that are extensive; genetically modified food has been on American tables for three decades, in large volume. The Department of Agriculture says GMOs are in at least 93% of the nation’s corn and 94% of its soybeans. If there has been actual harm to people, science has not found it.
Proponents also argue that GMOs can increase crop yields for a hungry world, reduce, in some cases, the use of pesticides, and help keep the cost of food under control, since more durable crops mean greater supply and lower maintenance.
But no matter what facts the industry may think it has on its side, the conversation will be mostly emotional. We have seen it time and again (think of debates over climate change policy or gun control). Many people have strong feelings about the issue, and when presented with contradictory information, they often dig in instead of responding.
Sounds familiar? In other words, it is the overly emotional response to GMOs that is actually preventing open discussions about the issues. Students of history can see this as a very obvious truth. Opponents of GMOs actually need to become more open minded and less reactive in order to gain the information they say they want.
Huh, now your arguing that corporations are people?
Actually, that has been the case in US law since the 1800s, for reasons that are pretty obvious in hindsight. If a corporation is not a legal person before the law, then a corporation cannot sue or be sued. That argument, first raised before the courts in 1809 has evolved and deepened since then, and by now it's a well established principle.
Quote:
Another hot bad blood topic? Goverment cencoring free speach? Where have you been it happens all the time. You can't yell FIRE in a movie theater!
That's a misunderstanding of the principle. You CAN legally shout "Fire" in a crowded theater if the theater is in fact on fire. What Oliver Wendell Holmes actually wrote, so often missed in modern paraphrasing, was that the First Amendment did not protect someone from "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." In other words, speech which is dangerous and false is not protected by the First Amendment, as opposed to speech which is dangerous but also truthful.
That is not censorship. Censorship is preventing you from saying something, before you speak.
And just as you cannot be forced by the government not to say something, you can't be forced to stand on a street corner with a sign around your neck saying "tax cheat" or "traitor" or "drunkard" or some other attack on your character... Freedom of Speech includes freedom from forced speech.
Quote:
But a point you really miss is we are suppose to live in a Democracy, Majority rules unless it really violates the constitution.
Forcing a company to label its products with the market equivalent of a "Poison" label when there is no proof that it is poison would be such a violation. Think of that as a form of McCarthyism, where even the accusation itself causes irreparable damage.
The reason we are constituted as a Representative form of Democracy, not as a pure democracy, is that our Founders recognized the inherent unfairness of mob rule, and believed that the common man would not be educated enough on the issues to make wise decisions. Like it or not, it's one of the things that makes our country unique and it has been a source of strength for over 2 centuries. Many, many issues have come and gone in that time which have proven the validity of the Constitutional foundation for our form of government.
The will of the people can not be overruled by the constitution. Ever. The US constitution is constantly adjusted, amended, interpreted. So don't spread falsehoods especially when the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on GMO labeling.
The desire of US consumers (like all other countries) for GMO labeling is not even remotely mob mentality--these were consistent results professionally taken over 2 decades.
There's no price tag on poll questions. Neither are they on a ballot. What kind of job were you botching when claiming that you were in this business?!?
OpenD, this Hawaii board is not your turf to spread the corporate GMO message unopposed anymore. People who have an interest to move or travel here should know that we farmers and citizens are not welcoming Monsanto and Syngentas mainland politics and operations on our islands. $300 MOnsanto money per vote didn't change that in Maui.
Each time you will post some corporate fear mongering, fake warnings about securing food supplies, costs of labeling, painting concerned moms as being against science, etc I will be on your tale with corrections.
Or to quote you verbatim: Have I made this clear enough yet?
"The will of the people can not be overruled by the constitution" - My gay friends/relatives would strongly disagree.
You know, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems clear to me that a company that can properly label their product as "NON-GMO" is free to do so. We have "No MSG", "No Transfats", "No sugar added", "No HFCS", etc. Why is this an issue?
Personally I thought that GMO was a high speed Pontiac in the 60s (3 deuces and a 4 speed...)
Mahalo and Merry Christmas!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) companies will start putting more info on their labels.
Where are the beach boys when we need them?
