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.
that sucks. but it had nothing to do with the feds, or the farm being organic, and everything to do with a screwup by local officials in the misguided 'war' on drugs.
Quote:
An Arlington police investigator laid out her marijuana suspicions and probable cause in a search warrant It was signed by a judge on August 1.
The SWAT Team then went to the property on Mansfield Cardinal Road one day later to execute the warrant around 7:30 a.m.
Actually, I don't care WHO is talking, and neither should you. I care about, and commented about, the naivete, itself, not the person posting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
YOU are the one who is naive if you think it makes good sense to trust BIG FOOD and BIG AGRA and our government with our food supply--- with their track record.
Not only did you distort what I wrote into something I didn't write, and then turn around and post a personal attack on me instead of attacking my perspective, but then you go forward further talking to yourself about things that I didn't dispute. What I labeled, and properly so, as naivete were (a) the assertion that there aren't substantive differences between the two main political parties, to start with, and (b) that a solution would be forthcoming in the absence of one of the two main political parties finding the arguments you're making worthwhile and substantive.
You're not going to get anywhere with your advocacy if you base it all on ignoring what other people are saying, shoving words in their mouths and then voicing criticisms of those words you made up, and denying the reality of the environment within which the changes you want to occur must take place.
Millions to keep you in the dark is nothing compared to the billions made from contaminating our food and environment with pesticides.
Washington is on track to be the first state to implement GE food labeling, should the initiative pass. Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws this past spring, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented.
These chemical companies spent 45 million defeating CA, and are spending millions in Washington.
Emily, I think you are witnessing some of that money being spent right on this thread to defeat your sound arguments.
To this day (9.12.2013) there is absolutely no concrete accredited scientific proof that GM foods cause health issues with Human Beings...
You are aware the report done for the FDA claimed different risks than non GMO. That it didn't claim no risks, correct?
And yes there is definite conflict of interest involved in all of this, which should not be dismissed. The same agencies profiting are also overseeing.
Millions to keep you in the dark is nothing compared to the billions made from contaminating our food and environment with pesticides.
Washington is on track to be the first state to implement GE food labeling, should the initiative pass. Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws this past spring, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented.
These chemical companies spent 45 million defeating CA, and are spending millions in Washington.
Emily, I think you are witnessing some of that money being spent right on this thread to defeat your sound arguments.
Uggabugga,please explain how it is possible for 64 nations and now a minimum of 50 percent and probably more like 96 percent of American voters in CA anyway associate GMOs with dangerous health risks if there aren't any?
A country much less 64 of them don't ban something unless they are sure they'd pose a danger to their people if they didn't. I know that may be difficult for you to imagine since the United States doesn't care enough about their people to do that, but try.
In fact where are all the websites touting their benefits if GMOs are so great?
Uggabugga,please explain how it is possible for 64 nations and now a minimum of 50 percent and probably more like 96 percent of American voters in CA anyway associate GMOs with dangerous health risks if there aren't any?
A country much less 64 of them don't ban something unless they are sure they'd pose a danger to their people if they didn't. I know that may be difficult for you to imagine since the United States doesn't care enough about their people to do that, but try.
In fact where are all the websites touting their benefits if GMOs are so great?
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.
