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.
As I had predicted, today a Federal Judge struck down the GMO restrictions enacted by the Big Island county council, on the same grounds as the similar Kauai county law was struck down, that state law preempts it. It's quite predictable that the same fate will befall the Maui anti-GMO law. And for that matter, if any county, or even the state were to pass a law requiring GMO foods to be labelled, it would almost certainly be overturned on similar grounds, as Federal law preempts State law in this area.
All that is happening with these futile attempts by anti-science activists to pass agenda-driven laws is that a bunch of lawyers are collecting big fat fees adjudicating the cases.
Quote:
Federal judge rules against Hawaii island GMO law
A federal judge's decision voids Hawaii island's new GMO ban, as was done to the Kauai law earlier.
A federal judge has ruled that Hawaii County can't enforce a law restricting genetically engineered crops because it's pre-empted by state law. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren's order issued Wednesday is similar to his earlier decision invalidating Kauai County's law on pesticides and genetically modified crops.
Hawaii County Corporation Counsel Molly Stebbins says the decision is disappointing but not surprising given the Kauai ruling. She says the county is evaluating whether to appeal. Attorney Margery Bronster says she's pleased with the ruling. She represents the group that sued to invalidate the Hawaii County law. The group includes Hawaii Floriculture and Nursery Association, Hawaii Papaya Industry Association and Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Kurren is also the magistrate for a similar challenge to Maui County's new law banning cultivation of genetically modified organisms.
They are doing a recount in Oregon for Measure 92.... but honestly, what is the point. If it is just going to end up in court.
It is so incredibly frustrating. Yes, I prefer to eat organic. I would much prefer if I knew my product was GMO free or not. If it is not labeled.. then I will assume it has GMO.
Ugh... just makes me so mad! How can it be lawful to not tell consumers, what they are putting into their bodies? Blows my mind!
[quote=the1heat4u;37433134]They are doing a recount in Oregon for Measure 92.... but honestly, what is the point. If it is just going to end up in court.It is so incredibly frustrating.
I say it's been an incredible waste of money, because it has almost zero chance of not being declared unconstutional.
Quote:
Yes, I prefer to eat organic. I would much prefer if I knew my product was GMO free or not. If it is not labeled.. then I will assume it has GMO.
That's a fair assumption, because something like 75% of the food in the supermarket contains GMOs. If it's something that concerns you, buy Certified Organic, which does not contain over 5% GMOs.
Quote:
Ugh... just makes me so mad! How can it be lawful to not tell consumers, what they are putting into their bodies? Blows my mind!
It's actually pretty simple...
1) There is a lack of credible scientific evidence that GMOs are unhealthy or unsafe, and the consensus of the scientific community is that GMOs actually are safe. Now with the recent release of the massive UC Davis study of livestock fed GMO feedstocks over 10 years, showing there is no difference in nutritional qualities nor any disease process or increase in mortality caused by GMOs, I think it will be impossible for anti-science, anti-GMO activists to prove "compelling public need" for this information to be made mandatory.
2) Our First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, include, as verified by Supreme Court rulings, to include the freedom to not speak. The Government cannot prevent you from speaking, nor can it compel you to speak, with very narrowly crafted exceptions based on proven needs, such as requiring calorie counts, vitamin content, and notices of danger to people with food allergies such as peanuts, based on substantial scientific research.
3) The FDA has the authority to regulate food labels across the country, and it preempts all state and county regulations. The FDA has approved GMO foods and ingredients for market without any kind of labeling, because of the absence of credible evidence such labels are needed.
4) In 1995 Vermont's mandatory labelling law concerning rBGH (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, essentially a GMO product), used to increase milk production, was overturned in Federal court based on #1 & #2, and probably would have ruled the same way based on #3.
In other words, the issue of mandatory labeling has already been settled, 19 years ago. It's unconstitutional.
OpenD, you are such a patronizing character. Why is somebody automatically anti-science when voting and speaking out against GMO in food?!?!
Write the GMO benefits for a consumer on the food package when you are so sure about it.
And the baloney the FDA would only mandate health and safety regulation on a label: Previously frozen (fish or meat) info is mandatory because consumers want to know--no dif in nutritional value or safety.
Same with COOL (country of origin) legislation: The strawberries from Oregon are the same as the ones from NZ or Chile. But mandated to be mentioned on the label. BECAUSE CONSUMERS WANT IT.
"Shut up and eat it!" attitude is not working with kids. Or consumers. And not working with voters either.
OpenD, you are such a patronizing character. Why is somebody automatically anti-science when voting and speaking out against GMO in food?!?!
I don't think it is at all patronizing to say that when people ignore science, and in fact act in opposition to science, that it is self-evident they are anti-science.
Quote:
Write the GMO benefits for a consumer on the food package when you are so sure about it.
What would it read? "This papaya was a papaya before We altered it to turn on it's immune system. It's still a papaya." That's how Dr. Rodrigues, developer of the Rainbow papaya described it when it was released by the U of H, and the seeds distributed free of charge to farmers, allowing them to recoup their business and save their family farms. 80% of the papayas grown in Hawai'i now are GMO, which saved the industry from destruction. "It was a papaya before. It's still a papaya." Why does that require a label? And now that the UC Davis study has been released showing that there really is no material difference, there's no need for a label.
Quote:
And the baloney the FDA would only mandate health and safety regulation on a label: Previously frozen (fish or meat) info is mandatory because consumers want to know--no dif in nutritional value or safety.Same with COOL (country of origin) legislation: The strawberries from Oregon are the same as the ones from NZ or Chile. But mandated to be mentioned on the label. BECAUSE CONSUMERS WANT IT.
You missed two steps... first Congress passed a federal law mandating those labels and the bill was signed by the President and passed into law... AND... the laws were not challenged in court. The last is critical to understanding what happened.
The court decision in Vermont in 1995 addressed this issue in their decision, essentially saying that consumers might wish to know what the cows ate for breakfast, and they might even want to know what the cow's name is, but neither rises to the level of compelling public interest. "Compelling interest" in this context has to be strong enough to overthrow the Constitutional protection, and absent convincing scientific evidence that there was any danger or harm from the use of rBGH, there was no such compelling interest. And they added that since the label had been so demonized by activists, without credible proof that their claims were true, that it was predictable that its mandatory use would hurt sales by those using the hormone, so it violated the milk producer's First Amendment rights.
Ironically the activists have done too good a job convincing consumers that GMO = poison to compel the use of the label. If they had gotten a law passed 20 years ago requiring GMOs to be labeled, when it was a neutral term with no charge on it, it might have been possible, before the term became a pejorative. But today the label is demonized, the consensus of scientists is that GMOs are safe, and there's no justification for the labeling that can stand in the face of Constitutional challenge.
Personally, I just want to know if the food is GMO or not. I also want to know where it was grown and by whom, if possible. There are so many odd things that manufacturers and folks making "food" try to get past the consumers that it's probably not possible to be too vigilant.
I find a lot of "scientific" determinations flawed since frequently they are paid for by the folks who are growing/manufacturing the whatever it is in question. There are also a lot of things that don't show up right away. Shall we go back to using lead water pipes? How about asbestos insulation? That was all the best tech at the time and it took a long time for the ill results to show up. IMHO, GMOs are too new for folks to properly evaluate them.
I also wonder why many other countries don't allow them to be imported?
Far as I know, one of the best ways to know what you're eating is to grow it yourself. And know your local farmers, too.
Frankly, I don't entirely trust the FDA. Why is it, that there are many other countries out there banning GMO's, yet America is completely fine with it?
Besides that, remember when it was ok to smoke while pregnant, or take certain medications, or how about drink. All of these things were once approved. Only later.. when they were able to collect enough data, and long term data to see that it is in fact unhealthy.
What is unconstitutional is the fact that we are not always given all the facts, and other peoples agendas sway what the public can see, and know. So when it comes down to food, this IS why I buy organic. The mighty dollar is what matters, and we all know there are people out there who really don't care who they hurt to get ahead.
So when the bulk of our crops are all taken over with GMO, and people are suffering even more so from disease and illness. Maybe then.... people will see it is a direct result of what we put into our bodies..
Let's just hope, it is not too late.
In a typical US Supermarket, up to 80% of the food is GMO.
A far easier solution, rather than practically labeling every single food in the supermarket as GMO, is to simply have food manufacturers label things as non-GMO.
One would think, if non-GMO is that popular, food manufacturers would be tripping all over themselves to do so and be able to charge a premium for it.
They are. A lot of products label themselves as "non-GMO" or "non-rBGH" (or whatever it is in milk). Same as the seed companies label the seeds as "non-GMO". It's gotten to more folks these days are selling something for what it doesn't have in it than for what it does. Tells ya something about the food manufacturing business.
Does "organic" equate to "non-GMO"?
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.
Finally!
