Great Day For Sustainability!: Rural Oregon voters back ban on GMO crops amid U.S. labeling uproar

[kpete]

UPDATE 2-Rural Oregon voters back ban on GMO crops amid U.S. labeling uproar
Wed May 21, 2014 6:42am EDT


By Shelby Sebens

May 20 (Reuters) - Voters in two small Oregon counties on Tuesday approved controversial ballot measures to ban cultivation of genetically engineered crops within their boundaries, though one measure is vulnerable to legal challenge under a new state law.

The measure in Jackson County in southern Oregon, garnering "yes" votes from nearly 66 percent of voters there, has drawn national attention and more than $1 million in campaign funding to the community, which has just 117,650 registered voters.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"It's a great day for the people of Oregon who care about sustainability and healthy ecosystems," the group GMO Free Oregon declared on its Facebook page after the results.

Opponents conceded defeat but said the debate would continue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/usa-oregon-gmos-idUSL1N0O706420140521

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. "Opponents conceded defeat but said the debate would continue."

To me that reads as looking for any possible way to go upstream to overturn the will of the people of Jackson County, as also evidenced by the earlier line 'though one measure is vulnerable to legal challenge under a new state law'.

[AceAcme]

2. The tide is turning. The people are speaking. Corporations better listen.

[jeff47]

3. Uhhhh

It's a great day for the people of Oregon who care about sustainability and healthy ecosystems

You know, "GMO" is not the same as "RoundUp Ready". Nor are GMO crops only produced by Monsanto.

GMO includes things like making a crop more drought tolerant. Which has been quite successful on corn and a few other crops. Drought tolerance might be a wee bit important if you "care about sustainability and healthy ecosystems". Instead, those OR voters just voted for more irrigation.

[kpete]

4. Have you ever seen a monsanto seed?

they are purple and perfectly round


I have had the opportunity to visit the Mississippi delta 5 times in the last 30 years.
Each time, there are less trees, less wildlife, less water (in spite of the Great Mississippi River)

I have seen with my own eyes
30 years of purple seeds...

makes me sick - I don't even have to eat the soy, rice, wheat that comes from them

[jeff47]

5. Let me quote my first two sentences, since you apparently didn't bother to read them.

You know, "GMO" is not the same as "RoundUp Ready". Nor are GMO crops only produced by Monsanto.

[kpete]

8. i did read them

i did not mean to offend you
just wanted to talk about those damn seeds,

peace, kp

[ag_dude]

17. "they are purple and perfectly round "

What the fuck are you talking about?

Monsanto, like all seed companies, makes dozens of types of seed. You haven't seen much seed if you think all "Monsanto seed" is purple and perfectly round.

[AceAcme]

6. Got a link for this 'drought tolerance' claim, Jeff? I don't think so.

It's Wishful Thinking, Inc.

Only one company is claiming to have such seed: Monsanto. But that's dubious. Marketing fog. There is no firm independent scientific evidence yet. So it's just a "claim." And there are many reasons to doubt Monsanto's veracity.

In general, the GMO-Chemical corporations have spewed a river of lies and misconceptions about the results and alleged "benefits" of their mutant creations.

MAY 19, 2014 STORY - from the Omaha World Herald

"Monsanto currently has the only USDA-approved GM drought-resistant crop variety on the market. DroughtGard, part of the Genuity product line, is designed to help corn plants use less water when they are stressed by drought.

"In 2012, Monsanto allowed 250 farmers throughout the Western Great Plains to plant DroughtGard for on-farm trials. From these trials the company concluded that the commercially projected product produces five bushels more per acre than other seed.
Some dispute the effectiveness of Monsanto’s DroughtGard, however.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists, which warns about the dangers of global warming, has produced a report on the effectiveness of GM drought-tolerant crops. The High and Dry report, published in 2012, cites USDA analyst results and suggests that DroughtGard improves farmers’ yields by only 1 percent and does not improve water-use efficiency..."

http://www.omaha.com/money/scientists-battle-drought-and-fears-about-gmos/article_5bfdf1cc-0443-5fef-84fe-3f0b1e66ab81.html

[jeff47]

7. Here's about 56,000 scientific papers

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=corn+drought+tolerance

Guess what? All 56,000 papers aren't all from Monsanto.

And that's one aspect, drought tolerance. There's lots of other aspects that are being manipulated to make crops more sustainable. By people who aren't Monsanto.

[AceAcme]

9. Only one (1) is USDA approved and being planted. It is Monsanto. And their claims are feeble.

Are you disputing the veracity of the report published earlier this week? Only one alleged "drought-tolerant" corn crop is being planted. And the "claimed" results are disputed.

56,000 papers have apparently not convinced the USDA.

[jeff47]

10. Yes, it's really tragic that time has stopped

and nothing new ever will be developed. We're stuck with one approved crop. It's utterly impossible to approve any other crop. And it's utterly impossible for anyone else to develop another crop.

56,000 papers have apparently not convinced the USDA.

Science takes more than one paper. So does USDA approval.

Anti-science: It's not just for Republicans!

[AceAcme]

12. I'm definitely in the pro-science camp. Just not the corporate "research" camp.

As everyone should know by now, GMO corps hold patent on their seeds, and tightly control which "scientists" are allowed to do research on their seeds.

Hell, they could spew out 560,000,000 "studies" and it wouldn't make a whisper of difference to discerning citizens. When there is truly independent science to validate or refute the "claims" of the corporations and their chosen hand-picked "scientists" then people -- including me -- will listen.

[jeff47]

13. Again, GMO is not the same as Monsanto

I'm definitely in the pro-science camp.

Which is why you are putting forward an argument that nothing ever changes.

GMO corps hold patent on their seeds, and tightly control which "scientists" are allowed to do research on their seeds.

Monsanto does. They are not the only entity doing research on GMO crops. For example, UC Davis is also researching GMO crops. And if you happen to also be a scientist, they'll send you some seeds for your research.

How 'bout instead of stupidly conflating Monsanto and GMO, you try targeting the actual behavior you'd like to change? Perhaps lobby for USDA approval to require independent testing.

Nah, much better to be luddites and throw away any benefit of GMO 'cause one one company is bad.

[AceAcme]

14. Bwaa ha ha ha. Your Strawmen arguments are fatally feeble. Probably from eating GMO crud.

You are lamely making up statements that you falsely claim I made, and then refuting the phony statements you'd like to pin on me. Talk about disregard for facts and science. Peee yewww.

because you (and many other GMO apologists) fail so deliberately the basic honesty and integrity measures, you force me to place you on ignore. Sayonara.

[ag_dude]

19. What study have you found that indicates GMO's have any impact on intellect?

[AceAcme]

20. They are right there on the library shelf right next to the studies proving that...

...GMO ingestion causes degeneration of the funny bone.

[ag_dude]

23. Sorry, didn't see an actual joke.

My bad.

[jeff47]

29. Tip: When making a claim like "statements I didn't make"

it's usually a good idea to not leave your luddite posts up when claiming to not be a luddite.

[calikid]

30. UCD & Monsanto are not working independently, they are one and the same.

They work together, on the same plots of land outside of Davis.
I live about thirty miles from there and am a farmer that receives news letters from both entities.

[jeff47]

31. Some are, some aren't.

Monsanto pays for some research. Some is not all.

[ag_dude]

18. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies

...done by universities and foreign governments on GMO crops.

[roody]

28. Right on time-big Ag defenders

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Good for Oregon!

We tried here in California but Fresno County bottled it up -- long story.

[AceAcme]

15. How peculiar. Disappeared debate. 10 posts 'disappeared' from thread. What's up with that?

I must have disappeared the debate myself when I was forced to hit the 'ignore' button.

C' est la vie.

[bemildred]

25. Ignore disappears sub-threads, it's not like a Hide. nt

[AceAcme]

16. Momentum building: Bill requiring labeling of genetically modified foods advances in Massachusetts

May 10 - "After three unsuccessful attempts, legislation filed by state Rep. Ellen Story, D-Amherst, to require labeling of genetically modified foods appears close to approval in the House, following similar recent action in Vermont..."

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/11914998-95/bill-requiring-labeling-of-genetically-modified-foods-advances-in-massachusetts-house

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. ...and people say the right has a monopoly on being anti-science.

I hope this doesn't last too long.

[AceAcme]

22. The left loves & embraces science, but wisely disdains corporate "science"

There's a ginormous difference. False equivalence amounts to pernicious reality distortion, the bane of real independent science, and intelligent discernment.

[ag_dude]

24. Then what explains the anti-GMO view of so many on the left?

There are thousands of studies that have been done over the past two decades by numerous nations and universities that overwhelmingly show the hysteria over GE is unfounded.

What is the basis for ignoring the science on this issue and instead buy into rhetoric and fear?

[AceAcme]

26. I'd bet the SHOVE-IT-DOWN-YOUR-THROAT-WITHOUT-YOUR-KNOWLEDGE stance of the corporations is a factor

Not to mention the great many studies that show GMO harm to the environment, to farm animals, as well as the highly suspicious onslaught of degenerative diseases that have afflicted human beings in greatly increased rates of incidence since the surreptitious introduction of GMO foods against public will. That's my 2 cents worth of an answer.

But there are probably a lot of other factors as well. Do all the studies you refer to conclude that concern over GMOs is unfounded? NO. Not at all. But if you are sincerely interested in knowing a complete answer to your question, you'll have to do your own research. Different people have different reasons, and most of them are valid.

[ag_dude]

27. Which of the "great many studies" did you find most alarming?

not to mention the great many studies that show GMO harm to the environment, to farm animals, as well as the highly suspicious onslaught of degenerative diseases that have afflicted human beings in greatly increased rates of incidence since the surreptitious introduction of GMO foods against public will. That's my 2 cents worth of an answer.

Which ones stick out to you the most?

Please don’t fall into the clichéd anti-GMO “look them up yourself” narrative, it’s such a bore. That’s what people say when they don’t actually know what they are referencing.

Frankly, I realize you’re not going to cite a “great many studies” because there simply aren’t a “great many studies” that show anything resembling the problems you cited relative to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject that goes back 2+ decades.

But there are probably a lot of other factors as well. Do all the studies you refer to conclude that concern over GMOs is unfounded? NO. Not at all. But if you are sincerely interested in knowing a complete answer to your question, you'll have to do your own research. Different people have different reasons, and most of them are valid.

I’ve done quite a bit of research on it, read probably 50 of the actual studies myself. Not propaganda websites, actual studies.

One of the better reviews of a large numbers of studies is “An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research.” The abstract can be found on Pubmed and you can find copies of its original text as well as an xls file with the 1,700+ papers they analyzed on any number of websites by simply typing in the name of the review itself.

The abstract…

The technology to produce genetically engineered (GE) plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary and one of the major achievements has been the development of GE crops. The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often ignored in the public debate. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.