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.
This is also an example of a Cognitive distortion, everything is black & white. OpenD what your expressing is your opinion backed by data. Never the less it not anymore the truth then the republican or democrat parties is 100% truth. When there is enough money and interests then you can find studies pro or con for every position.
Well, I have no money riding on this, and no interests backing me, so I guess I just don't fit your model of equivalence of everything.
Sure, you can find studies that say all kinds of things about all kinds of things, but they are not all equivalent. With discernment and a little investigation you can tell the difference between credible information from reliable sources vs. bogus information from unreliable sources.
Anti-GMO activists depend heavily on pseudoscience to make their claims, citing poorly designed experiments with samples too small to be statistically significant, with unpublished results that aren't reproducible or verifiable. For examples the claims are made widely that giving GMO feeds to livestock leads to tumors and digestive problems and premature mortality, according to small studies and short time periods... whereas the massive UC Davis showed that none of these effects were observed over a 21 year study involving 100 billion animals... but the activists are quick to claim... as has been done in this thread... that the UC Davis research doesn't really prove anything. Sorry, that isn't the way science works.
And once again, I repeat... the court decision will be based on facts and legal precedent. I personally believe the 1995 Vermont decision regarding mandatory labeling of milk containing GMO hormone will rule the day in the current Vermont GMO labeling case, already set for trial. Furthermore I think that 1995 precedent will hold sway in the Big Island, Kauai, and Maui cases if it comes to that, although I doubt that it will. Seems more likely to me that the arguments that this is not a matter for counties to decide will rule the day. And behind that is the argument that the states have to defer to federal law and FDA And EPA and USDA in matters such as these.
Meanwhile the taxpayers will continue to pay the lawyers to grind it all finer and finer.
With discernment and a little investigation you can tell the difference between credible information from reliable sources vs. bogus information from unreliable sources.
I respectfully disagree. It's not always that simple. We are supposed to follow the money and yet that is not the easiest thing to do. People are VERY good at hiding who is behind what. Then you also have to add in the fact that what is scientifically proven true today, is often scientifically proven false tomorrow. Over my life I have heard many, many, MANY times that this is good and that is bad, only to find out later that it was all BS.
These so called elected officials apparently don’t believe that the states have the right to mandate GMO labeling. Also, according to nationofchange.org, “over $260,000 was openly pumped into the House, and $122,000 was pumped into the Senate from Monsanto. And again, this is openly. I’m speculating, but I would imagine the real number to easily be in the millions. Can you imagine how much they must pay these politicians to shoot down GMO labeling bills that 90 plus percent of the entire country wants?”
These so called elected officials apparently don’t believe that the states have the right to mandate GMO labeling.
And that is completely accurate, as I've tried to point out here. That falls to the Federal Government to regulate, and the FDA is the agency responsible.
Quote:
Also, according to nationofchange.org, “over $260,000 was openly pumped into the House, and $122,000 was pumped into the Senate from Monsanto. And again, this is openly. I’m speculating, but I would imagine the real number to easily be in the millions. Can you imagine how much they must pay these politicians to shoot down GMO labeling bills that 90 plus percent of the entire country wants?â€
Three things come to mind...
1) assuming that money spent on lobbying and advertising is unfair or corrupt without any evidence to support it has no merit.
2) almost all the money to support GMO labelling and bans in Hawai'i came from the mainland, with paid activists on staff... as documented in the local papers. So there's no moral high ground to take here with your argument, and no big grass roots support. The Natural Foods industry has become huge, and one way they justify their higher prices is to scare people about conventional food. This is just another PR expenditure for them.
3) the claim that 90% of the country supports GMO labeling is bogus, and does not withstand scrutiny. If anything, my guess is that 90% of the country doesn't really care. Heck, 50% of the country probably doesn't even know anything about it, and far less than 50% even vote. It's an elitist issue that appeals to a small demographic.
And as I've said from the top, it doesn't matter how many elected officials do support it if it is just going to get struck down in court for being unconstitutional.
Only the lawyers come out ahead when people push laws that are unconstitutional.
$70 grand & anger win against $8 mil mainland corporate money:
A defeat by democracy unprecedented in USA lobbying history. Maui did it. Spinning it any different won't help--it was heard around the world. And will be repeated over and over.
52% of Americans believe GMO foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 % are unsure about them.
Nearly everyone, moreover — 93 %— says the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified, or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.
57% also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified. That puts the food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would be steering business away from its genetically modified products.
Genetically modified foods are particularly unpopular among women (60%), another problem for food producers since so many women do the family shopping.
Republicans are 50-50 on whether genetically modified foods are safe or unsafe.
Independents rate them unsafe at 80%;
Democrats rate them unsafe by 74%.
$70 grand & anger win against $8 mil mainland corporate money:
A defeat by democracy unprecedented in USA lobbying history. Maui did it. Spinning it any different won't help--it was heard around the world. And will be repeated over and over.
Of course there have been popular votes that have overturned corporate interests before, and aren't we all glad that we live in a country where that is possible? I certainly am. But when popular vote clashes with Constitutional law, the Constitution will out. Look at all the states that passed laws, even State Consitutional amendments, banning gay marriage, yet they are all now falling like dominoes before Supreme Court rulings that they violate the Constitution of the United States.
And need I say, there are states today where a law could likely be passed by popular vote limiting people's rights by skin color. Wouldn't make it legal. That's my key point here from post #1... bandwagon popularity doesn't make something legal.
The way you labeled the link to the ABC News survey shows that you are continuing to make this personal. Please stop doing that. Just stick to the facts.
But no, it proves nothing about my guess. Nothing at all. I was commenting on people's actual knowledge and beliefs, not on pop survey results. Having worked in the survey business, I can say without qualification that the survey you quoted is nearly meaningless, a piece of the pseudoscience that substitutes for actual detailed analysis in popular "news" reports.
Quote:
52% of Americans believe GMO foods are unsafe, and an additional 13 % are unsure about them.
Let's start with that headline... and edit it to be more accurate factually...
Quote:
52% of the 1,024 Americans reached by telephone, a non-random sample comprised of people who 1) own a telephone (1/3 of Americans don't) 2) were home when the call was placed (probably during evening hours, since that is when most people are home and most telephone surveys are conducted) and 3) answered the phone and 4) were willing to answer the questions (many people don't answer calls from unfamiliar numbers, and many who do answer decline to participate - it might easily have taken 10,000 calls to get that 1,000+ response), said they believe GMO foods are unsafe, using questions that have not been double blind tested for neutrality, and an additional 13 % said they are unsure about them.
Quote:
Nearly everyone, moreover —93 % of the small non-random sample who answered — says the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified, or "bio-engineered" (this poll used both phrases). Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.
I've seen similar results in a survey asking if people found food labels useful, and the clear majority of those surveyed said no, they never read or almost never read them, and the reason most often cited was that they had too much information on them.
Quote:
57% also say they'd be less likely to buy foods labeled as genetically modified. That puts the food industry in a quandary: By meeting consumer demand for labeling, it would be steering business away from its genetically modified products.
Both sides agree that about 80% of the food products currently on supermarket shelves contain some GMOs... even labeled Organics are allowed to have up to 5% GMOs, so a few more pertinent questions might be "How much more would you be willing to pay to eliminate all GMOs from your shopping basket? 10%? 20%? 30%? More? If you don't ask the question that way, you're skewing the results up front, because overwhelmingly American consumers put top priority on food prices.
Quote:
Genetically modified foods are particularly unpopular among women (60%), another problem for food producers since so many women do the family shopping.
Unpopular in theory, and unpopular when survey questions are asked, perhaps, but that isn't reflected in the general public's buying patterns. As it is now they are not buying "non-GMO" Certified Organic foods, with their associated higher costs, in overwhelming numbers. Certified Organics are predominantly an elitist interest among people who have enough money to make the choice.
And back to the art of doing surveys, if you read the following statement, from ABC's article, to people before asking the questions, the survey results would be quite different. There's a known factor of a strong bias people have to answer surveys with the "correct" answer that must be carefully corrected for in order to get meaningful results.
Quote:
The FDA has said labeling isn't necessary because there's no evidence genetic engineering changes a food's quality, safety, "or any other attribute." In a report late last year, the American Medical Association also said there was "no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class."
And that's a pretty good precis on where the matter stands today.
Wouldn't it be simpler to counter post a link to a survey* done by the GMO peeps where a majority of consumers don't want a GMO label?
I challenge you to find a single one. Not because the GMO corporations didn't do them--they prefer not to publish the results. Every company has a clause in the contract with the conducting facility to prevent the publishing of unwanted outcomes of studies. As a pro you must know that, but still prefer to not mention it when quoting those 'studies'.
*(Fear campaigns against voter ballots don't count as they are not properly conducted surveys)
The constitution allows the killing of unborn citizens without a trial and without giving a reason. By popular vote. But for a friggin GMO food label a 'popular' vote is unwarranted?!?
Wouldn't it be simpler to counter post a link to a survey* done by the GMO peeps where a majority of consumers don't want a GMO label?
No, because the popular vote is irrelevant. How can you miss that central point in all this after all the times and ways I've repeated it? The Judge in the case I cited in my OP did not strike down the Hawai'i County statute because it was unpopular, but because it isn't allowed under the prevailing legal system.
Quote:
The constitution allows the killing of unborn citizens without a trial and without giving a reason.
Again, that is not at all how the Supreme Court has ruled, or what their ruling means. Rewording the pertinent ruling to fit your own personal belief system or agenda is a dead end because the Supreme Court itself is legally responsible for interpreting their own rulings and precedents, not social movements.
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.
96.3% of all statistics are made up...
