'Tide is Turning' as Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Ban of GE Crops

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Common Dreams

Published on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 by Common Dreams

'Tide is Turning' as Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Ban of GE Crops

Ronnie Cummins: "These victories make it clear to agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Dow that the day has come when they can no longer buy and lie their way to victory."

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

In a victory for sustainable food advocates everywhere, two counties in Oregon on Tuesday voted to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Despite an onslaught of spending by agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Monsanto, voters in Jackson County and Josephine County overwhelming took a stand for measures protecting "seed sovereignty and local control" of food systems. The Jackson Measure 15-119 passed 66-34 percent, while the Josephine County Measure 17-58 passed 58-42 percent.

"It's a great day for the people of Oregon who care about sustainability and healthy ecosystems!" GMO Free Oregon wrote on their Facebook page after receiving the final tally.

“Tonight family farmers stood up for our basic right to farm,” cheered Elise Higley, Jackson County farmer and campaign director for the Our Family Farms Coalition, in a statement following the vote.

Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/21-1

[freshwest]

1. The corporations swayed the vote just north of there.

What Sank the GMO Labeling Initiative in WA State? What’s Next?



Last November, a slim majority of Washington voters were persuaded that they did not need to know about the GMO ingredients in their food.

How could an issue with a 66 percent approval rating last summer lose 51-49 by election day? Four reasons: wrong year, outside money, lapdog press, lukewarm message...

And among the reasons:

Outside Money: Four out-of-state Big Chemical corporations and the Food Manufacturers Association donated a whopping $22 million, half of it illegal, to sway voters with a barrage of negative advertising.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5EoRd7_UGjeKqnM2HUwalQ

Day after day, up to four times an hour, voters heard seemingly trustworthy, reliable speakers—farmers (including an organic farmer), a dietitian, an obstetrician, a former attorney general–claim the “poorly written” initiative was bad for farmers, would raise food costs, had too many exemptions. Most importantly, they said GM food is no different from ordinary food, so why bother labeling it?

Well-crafted, polished, convincing advertising, except none of it was true...

More surprising was the role of KCTS Channel 9, the local affiliate of PBS, in swaying the election. KCTS’s decision to air “Next Meal: Engineering Food,” a biotech infomercial masquerading as a documentary, right before the election represents a clear violation of its charter to provide fair and balanced information to the public.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/videoblogging/2014/01/22/gmo-labeling-wa-state/

$22 million reasons...

[Cha]

5. So sorry, fresh! :(

[SoapBox]

8. The Big Chem and Agri-Pharma, sank it in California too.

It was stunning to hear the citizenry, take the bullshit propaganda, hook, line and sinker.

Everyone had a choice, buy it or don't buy it...the law would have only required labeling to reflect that it contained GMO ingredients.

Hopefully, the tide will indeed turn.

[Judi Lynn]

49. Thanks for the links. n/t

[ag_dude]

2. What was their reason for the ban?

[Texano78704]

6. Yes. Based on what science?

[Archae]

14. None.

It's based entirely on anti-science woo and hysteria.

[AceAcme]

27. According to which corporate spokes-spewers?

It would be nice to know who is disparaging and denigrating the citizens of the USA in the exercise of their intelligence and free will. Some corporate hacks have no honor at all.

[Judi Lynn]

47. Excellent! Thanks for posting this. n/t

[AceAcme]

57. You are welcome, Judi L.

[Tumbulu]

21. Based on seed production science

If you are a seed grower, you cannot sell your seed if it has been contaminated by GMO's through pollen or commingling.

These are big seed producing counties, and they have done something to protect their industries.

[sendero]

58. It's as if..

... some of these folks are wholly unfamiliar with the business tactics regularly engaged in by Monsanto, as if they know not one thing about why people DON'T WANT THIS SHIT.

It provides NO BENEFIT to HUMANITY, it carries risks of all sorts, and the "anti-science" horseshit is getting stale. Eugenics and nuclear weapons are "science" that doesn't make them good. And for DECADES "science" told us cigarettes were good for us. Spare me.

It would sure be nice if people would just make these frankenfoods illegal. But I will settle for at least labeling so I can avoid them.

[Tumbulu]

62. I want them all gone until unbiased testing has been done

key word UNBIASED.

[HuckleB]

66. 2000 peer reviewed and post publication assessed studies.

600 of those done independently.

I don't think you care about testing at all. You simply ignore the evidence against your preconceived notions.

[Tumbulu]

87. Well, I sure do care

and since I worked alongside the liars who started this industry up 30 years ago, I sure know the shenanigans that they pulled. Don't tell me it is all OK and trust these guys.

The original sin of the crop gmo jerks is that they did not test prior to release of the seeds.

In a conversation with the CEO of Genetech he lamented that these arrogant fools would destroy the reputation for the entire industry. The pharmaceuticals that have been genetically engineered are thoroughly tested and not released into the environment.

The businessmen who pushed the scientists to lie about the safety of genetic engineered seeds/plants without testing them prior to release sealed their fate.

They destroyed the credibility of their industry all to save a few years of proper registration work.

Greed spelled their doom.

[HuckleB]

94. As usual, you just rant and rave without reason.

You have no actual response, ever. You do realize that, right?

[Tumbulu]

11. There are a lot of seed producers in this area

any of us whose seeds become contaminated by gmo polled find our crops/seed/products to be unsaleable. This is not a joke, and the gmo guys do not pay any compensation to those of us who are contaminated. In fact they sue US for stealing their oh so precious gmo traits!!!! When it is we who lose our livelihoods over them.

This is a business issue that has to do with the capacity to produce seed crops that are not contaminated with gmo genes.

[yellowcanine]

16. What kind of seed? Main GMO crops are soybeans and corn.

I don't think this has anything to do with seed producers.
And this will not stop farmers from growing Roundup Ready corn or soybeans either.
This is a feel good vote which will change nothing. Commerce clause of the Constitution gets in the way.

[Tumbulu]

19. I am an organic seed grower and

many seed growers in a seed growers association I am a member of are in that area. Not sure if it was the alfalfa, beets, or some particular grass seed. These counties are top grass seed, beet, and alfalfa seed producing counties, and they voted to save their industry. They don't produce soybeans or corn up there.

Seed producers are heavily impacted by unsolicited GMO pollen along with seed mix up issues at the handling facilities. And there are currently no regulations in place to protect those of us who do not want to be contaminated. This is a first, important step for us.

[yellowcanine]

28. Point is you cannot tell a farmer what he can or cannot grow if it is a legal (U.S. law) crop.

Corn and soybeans are the main GMO crops. A lot of sweet corn is also GMO. These may not be the main crops in the region but some farmers may want to grow them. For example, gardeners and farmers may want to grow Bt sweet corn, which is GMO. This law cannot be enforced, it is unconstitutional by the commerce clause - if Congress says a crop is legal, individual states, let alone individual counties, cannot make it illegal. The one exception to this is alcoholic beverages, which can be outlawed by states or individual counties according to the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.

So as I said, this is "feel good" legislation.

[Tumbulu]

29. Nope, not true at all

at the county level there are many rules and regulations about which crops can be grown, particularly the higher value seed crops.

We have to let other farmer's know what we are planting in which fields and we all have to make sure that enough distance is between the various types of seed crops that could cross pollinate. Many particular varieties of crops are quarantined or banned. Some species are banned entirely due to insect eradication efforts, etc. Sometimes the ban is for a few seasons, sometimes indefinitely.

Don't post about things that you do not know about, please. These counties are big seed producing counties and they are protecting their industries from being rendered redundant by the potential contamination from gmo pollen.

[yellowcanine]

32. Not the same thing at all. The law as passed prohibits all GE crops.

What you are talking about are regulations agreed to by individual commodity groups in conjunction with state agricultural depts and/or the USDA - similar to how commodity check off programs work. This is not anything remotely like a public referendum banning GEs. I will guarantee you that this referendum will be challenged in Federal court and it will be struck down. I will decide what I am going to post, thank you, your condescending advice notwithstanding.

[Tumbulu]

40. Wrong again

County ag commissioners have a great deal of power and use it. State departments of ag use their power as well.

This is nothing to do with commodity check-offs or the USDA.

I have been producing seed crops for over 30 years in 5 states, I think that I know a little bit about these sorts of rules and regulations.

These producers have a lot to lose if gmo crops are planted and screw up their seed business sales.

[roody]

23. Good thing you are talking to

some seed producers. You can inform yourself.

[HuckleB]

25. It is interesting that the so-called seed growers don't seem to know the details, themselves.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/05/14/oregon-gmos-three-things-know/9086283/

Most farmers were very much against this measure.

"Opponents, including the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Seed Council, Oregon Wheat Growers League and Oregon Women for Agriculture, urged voters to reject the proposal.

"This measure unnecessarily disadvantages farmers, threatens the economic viability of family farms, and will lead to farmers defending themselves in court against frivolous lawsuits," said Roger Beyer, executive director of the Oregon Seed Council.

Supporters say opponents are misleading voters with false claims, such as the charge that the measure would affect traditional hybrids.

"It's incredible that they are bringing in out-of-town speakers to tell Jackson County voters how to vote when they can't even list a handful of local farms on their supporter list," said Elise Higley, with the Our Family Farms Coalition."

[Tumbulu]

30. Oh yeah, here we go again

forget it, your side lost this one. Seed growers need to protect themselves and until the gmo folk come up with a compensation program to pay us for the lost revenues when our seed is rendered unsaleable because it was contaminated with unsolicited gmo pollen, then get back to me.

Until then, figure out a way to stop polluting our germplasms.

[yellowcanine]

33. "forget it, your side lost this one" You have no clue as to how this will play out.

Referendum results get shot down all of the time in the courts. Just look at what is happening right now with bans against gay marriage.

[HuckleB]

34. Science lost. Baseless fear won.

Last edited Thu May 22, 2014, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies#

[Tumbulu]

41. business interests won, small business interests in fact.

These counties are seed producing counties and until all the gmo activists can get it into their heads that real small businesses lose when our seeds are contaminated, you just will not get it.
.

[HuckleB]

44. Nice propaganda.

Science lost. Some businesses won over other businesses. Most citizens lost.

[Tumbulu]

46. Very interesting choice of words

Tell me how your industry is compensating those of us who lose our livlihoods over contamination from your GMO genes trespassing onto our farms and seed lines?

[HuckleB]

48. I don't have an industry.

Tell me how your propaganda is compensating all humans who lose out to your anti-science nonsense?

[arikara]

107. Just ignore it

hijacks every GMO thread. Not worth responding to.

[Tumbulu]

108. You are right, nt

[countryjake]

36. Ever heard of Seed farmers' long struggle against Canola/Rapeseed?

Obviously not. Do you even know any seed growers?

Do you?

The vegetable-seed industry has been up here in the Pacific Northwest for more than a hundred years; the threat of GM crops cross-pollinating and contaminating that generations-old tradition is very real and has already happened, in the case of some fields.

Do you care?

[HuckleB]

37. Yes, I do. I live in Oregon, and I discuss matters with them regularly.

None of them supported this bad law.

Further, your red herring has nothing to do with this topic.

[countryjake]

38. What "red herring"?

[HuckleB]

39. Facepalm.

Last edited Thu May 22, 2014, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies#

[Tumbulu]

51. Another rude response

So far you are 100% on target rude, so typical of the bullies on the GMO bandwagon. So full of great data bought and paid for by industry. So very funny.

[HuckleB]

52. A rude response is dishonest.

And that's what I get from you, and from the other poster in question.

Intellectual dishonesty is very rude. No one should have to deal with it, so why do you push it upon others?

[Tumbulu]

54. Your posts speak for themselves

Your style is that most commonly employed by the GMO bullies. All who read here can see clearly how the GMO apologists operate. Rude bullies, one and all.

[HuckleB]

56. Ah, yes, because bullies are the ones who have evidence to support their claims.

Oh, wait.

[Cha]

110. Yeah, what's up with that? I read of a personal encounter with a GMO rep on our

Island here a few years ago. This gmo person was rude to a waitress who was serving them because she was talking about all the organic vegetables that were available. She wrote a letter to the paper about it.

Like they have a freaking chip on their shoulder and we should knock it off.. gladly.

[Tumbulu]

112. I have seen it my entire career

from ruining other's experiments in the lab, to faking data, to doing anything to make money fast and before they get caught in the lies.

It takes a certain type and these kind all attract each other. Just look at this guys style.....

[Cha]

114. I have noticed this

person's style for quite awhile now.. it never varies.

[Arugula Latte]

59. ...

[ag_dude]

61. A picture?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. free will and democracy.

a couple of little thing we humans in democratic nations have.

They could have just as easily have banned, oh, paper manufacturing in-state, which smells bad. Or boxing, which a lot of folks think is too violent.

They didn't want it, so they banned it.

[ag_dude]

79. But they didn't, they banned this.

Passing laws willy nilly doesn't make sense.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. Welcome to every legislature ever.

It may not make sense, but it's happened. When you're bored sometime, go out and search up the revised code of whatever state or municipality you live in. I'm sure you'll find some really weird stuff.

Heck, I can't even plant some of the flowers I want to because my city considers them 'weeds', ignoring the fact that they're vital for the reproduction of various butterflies.

[ag_dude]

82. Weak.

There are stupid laws so who cares if there more stupid laws?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. Not quite what I was saying.

I didn't characterize this as a 'stupid law', either. It may be a pointless law, but to be a 'stupid law' in my books, it would actually have to create harm, not just restrict one specific subset of non-native species from being added to a region. Restricting people from having actual native plants that are part of the ecosystem counts as actually stupid in my books.

The whole point of a lot of GM plants seems to be to create crops that resist becoming part of the ecosystem. They can't or don't feed the low level 'pests' near the bottom of the food chain, which is good if you don't want to 'lose' part of your yield, but when you completely kill off all the 'weeds' and don't have your crops being munched on, you might as well have paved over all that cropland as far as keeping the ecosystem humming along goes. You've created artificial 'food deserts' for the native wildlife, and the disruption ripples all the way along the food chain, even worse than just normal, not-pest free swathes of monoculture plantings.

[ag_dude]

85. We're using different definitions of stupid.

When I say stupid, I mean pointless. Although, in this case, codifying a Luddite approach to agricultural science does have consequences but not a large one. Farmers will just use more pesticides and fertilizers instead.

Your issues in the second paragraph are related to agriculture in general, not GMOs. Land has been tilled to remove weeds and steps have been taken to eliminate pests and wildlife losses for literally thousands of years, it's one of the cornerstones of civilization. It's not the slightest bit an exaggeration to say that you are arguing that billions should starve because you want a more diverse ecosystem.

BTW, you never mentioned where that microRNA study you mentioned in a previous thread was. You told me to look it up on Google but there are several thousand studies a person can find regarding GE crops and doing a search of the largest database for "microRNA" didn't bring up any studies indicating anything resembling what you said.

[HuckleB]

84. So, when the GOP goes anti-science on climate change, etc...

DU goes mad, but we shouldn't care if other bodies do the same thing?

[central scrutinizer]

3. these are rural counties in the far southwest corner of the state

They typically vote for Republican candidates although Peter DeFazio is their congressional representative. He is facing again a real lunatic - Art Robinson - who he has handily defeated in the past. Robinson, I kid you not, has asked people to mail him urine samples twice a year for his research.

[HuckleB]

17. They're also some of the most anti-vaccine counties in the country.

Last edited Thu May 22, 2014, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not surprising that they'd buy into another anti-science campaign.

PS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277286/-About-Those-Industry-Funded-GMO-Studies#

[Tumbulu]

31. yes, always malign and slander

same ol same ol........

[HuckleB]

35. I've yet to see you support any of your claims with an actual consensus of science.

Noting that the area has a population that tends to buy into anti-science ideas is not slander. It's just pointing out the reality.

And why focus on GMOs while ignoring other hybrid technologies? It makes no sense to single out one technology. I mean why no concerns about nuclear mutagenesis or other technologies?

[Tumbulu]

42. Oh you honestly think that hybridizing plants is the same thing as genetically engineering them?

Is this a joke? Where did you go to school?

Are you a plant breeder?

[HuckleB]

43. So you don't understand genetics.

I'm not surprised.

[Tumbulu]

45. Are you serious????? you honestly do not know

The difference between taking genes from one species and infecting another species with it?

I repeat, where did you study plant breeding?

[HuckleB]

50. I understand that you fail to understand genetics.

You've failed to support your claims for years. You've failed to show any understanding of science, over and over again. You promote many anti-science stances. When will you support your claims? Cut the crap.

[Tumbulu]

53. Support what claim? That genetic engineering

is not the same as plant breeding techniques employing the normal processes used by breeders for millennia?

Again, your rudeness is appalling. You honestly do not know the difference between cross pollinating plants to get a hybrid and using molecular biology to infect a plant with foreign genes?

[HuckleB]

55. Thanks for the confession. I appreciate it.

Wow! That was awesome!

[Tumbulu]

63. You think making hybrid crosses is the same as infecting

the genetic structure of an organism on purpose and without any regulatory oversight?

I think that you need to go back to school, and in the meantime stop posting here as if you something about the subject.

Shame on you!

[LTX]

65. Horizontal gene transfer is remarkably common.

Your use of the word "infecting" suggests that you believe interspecies breeding and horizontal gene transfer do not exist as a recurrent phenomenon in nature, or in the process of traditional plant hybridization. Are you a creationist?


(Some context): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220454.htm

[Tumbulu]

89. Oh so it is name calling again?!

I am a plant breeder, what are you?

And this paper is talking about gene transfer in microorganisms using plasmids which is of course how the genetic engineers hitched up the genes they wanted to transfer into the plants (or anything else for that matter). And I consider it an infection to implant a foreign gene in who knows where on a mystery chromosome screwing up who knows what in the process and then having the absolute gaul to claim it is all just fine and does not require any testing.....

Bullying jerks, that is how this industry started and it is just keeping on keeping on, just look at how you guys operate.

[HuckleB]

67. There is massive regulatory oversight on GMOs.

Far more than any other hybrid technology. Why do you pretend otherwise? It's as if you don't like reality.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/224613622/GMO-Technology-is-Simply-Precision-Breeding

[Tumbulu]

90. More lies, and simply ridiculous. How is it that the Bt toxin got classified as the natural Bt

and no residue testing was required? Think that was kosher?

There should have been at the beginning a proper regulatory system for gmo seeds and plants.

To have been able to patent the seeds as novel, but claim they are the same (regulatory wise) remains one of the most bizarre arguments of all times.

[HuckleB]

99. Prove that the source lies.

Prove it. Don't claim it. Prove it.

[Tumbulu]

102. Prove what? You can google the EPA registration of Bt cotton and corn

You can look it up yourself, don't know how to do such a search?

[HuckleB]

103. As usual, you can't prove any of your claims.

Why do you waste the time of others? Lame.

[Aerows]

70. I would just let that one go.

You can't convince someone that doesn't want to be convinced and doesn't really understand the situation, either.

[HuckleB]

81. You're the ones who are pushing fictions, because you don't understand the issue.

None of you are able to support your claims.

Doesn't that make you question yourself once in a while?

[Tumbulu]

91. where you there 30 years ago when this all began?

What lab did you work in?

I worked in the industry. I am a plant breeder. Let the people who follow these discussions make up their own minds.

Over 90% of people want the products of the plants produced with this technology labeled. Pretty darn simple. Think there is no reason for that?

If the bullies who pushed this stuff out without testing or regulatory oversight had simply set up some sort of decent protocol instead of cowboying it through, things would have been very different.

But they were bullies then and they are bullies now. The sad thing is that good scientists and young breeders who want to use this technology are all lumped in with these pushy pioneers who gave real scientists a very bad name. And who destroyed the potential of their industry by greed.

The only way out is to label the products, come up with a regulatory framework and a system to protect seed producers from contamination of seed stocks.

[HuckleB]

98. What other logical fallacies will you offer up?

You have lost the science based discussion. You have nothing but fiction-based hyperbole and personal attacks.

[Tumbulu]

101. Can't answer the question?

when you have some answers, get back to me.

[HuckleB]

104. I'm the only one who gives answers.

Hello? Is anyone home?

[Tumbulu]

88. Oh you think cross pollinating plants is the same as molecular biology?

Where did you go to school?

I notice that none of you will fess up to having studied biology even.

What is with you guys?

Molecular genetics is very sophisticated, complicated and expensive. It is FAST!

Plant breeding is slow (we measure progress in decades), relatively inexpensive and requires a very different set of skills.

It is insulting to both to claim that they are the same.

[Tumbulu]

96. You are so right, sorry I replied to you instead of the gmo bully nt

[Aerows]

109. It's okay :D n/t

[U4ikLefty]

113. I appreciate your time out.

well deserved

[Aerows]

69. Genetic Engineering

"Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations."

Inserting additional DNA into a host organism, or synthesizing DNA and having genes removed has NOTHING to do with hybridizing plants. NOTHING.

[HuckleB]

71. So you don't understand genetics either.

GMO Technology Is Simply Precision Breeding
http://www.scribd.com/doc/224613622/GMO-Technology-is-Simply-Precision-Breeding

The anti-GMO movement is all about anti-science hyperbole. It's really not ethical at all.

[Aerows]

72. I don't understand genetics

LOL. Okay. Considering that my B.S. is in Chemistry, I'd say that it is highly unlikely that is the case considering how many science classes and scientific discussions that I attended. But do go on.

[HuckleB]

73. You have to show that you understand genetics. You are not showing that at all.

Can you name the logical fallacy you just tried to use?

Are you really going to stick with your past answers, while ignoring the evidence provided to you? They are simple, pat repeats of ant--GMO cliches.

[Aerows]

74. All of the evidence I have seen

points to the fact that Monsanto harasses farmers, looks for ways to sue the shit out of them when their seeds cross-pollinate other farmers fields, and makes those who grow their GMO crops dependent on Monsanto for seeds.

That's all the evidence anyone really needs to know, because when you follow the money, you end up at the right conclusion.

When you come on a message board claiming that everyone on the board but you doesn't understand genetics, well, let's just say there's a logical fallacy for that one, too.

[HuckleB]

75. Prove these claims, please.

Prove that Monsanto sues when their seeds cross pollinate. Prove that they make people dependent on them for seeds.

You can't. Yet, you are here showing that you don't understand the genetics of the matter, and now you are pushing classic anti-GMO fictions. Why do people who are against GMOs think they need to lie so much?

[Aerows]

76. I'm actually not anti-GMO

and never have I stated in this thread that I am. What *I* have a problem with is Monsanto's business practices.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

Can't save seeds. From ... MONSANTO themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

Sued farmer when their truck passed by and canola seeds landed on his property

http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm

And I'll just leave that one there for everyone's perusal.

Additionally, since I really don't like being called a liar and being insulted, I'm going to refrain from responding to you anymore.

[HuckleB]

78. As I noted, you couldn't back up your claims. You simply moved the goalposts.

Companies have not allowed farmers to save seeds for a long, long time. Long before GMOs came along, and Monsanto is only one of many seed companies in this world. Farmers, quite frankly, don't save seeds because it doesn't save them any money.

None of those matters have anything to do with with banning GMOs outright, or demanding a label for them. It's just more misdirection.

BTW, you lied. You made claims that you cannot support. If you don't to be called out, then don't push dishonest claims. Heck, your claim before this last link is not supported by your link. Why would you push a claim that you can't support yet again?

[Tumbulu]

93. Oh our liar has the nerve to call someone else a liar?

typical genetic engineer personality - you know very little about the subject it appears and so I would suggest you stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into it.

[HuckleB]

95. Please prove that I'm a liar.

I proved that the other poster lied. If I lied, then prove it, with actual peer-reviewed evidence.

[Tumbulu]

92. Giving it a new name is simply lying,

and it is everything except precise. Sure maybe it will be, but those gmo soybeans, they were not engineered in any sort of precise way.

You have no right to act as though you are some sort of an expert about this.

[HuckleB]

97. Nope.

It is what it is. If you can't accept that, that's your problem.

You have yet to support any of your claims about GMOs. Heck, you can't support your personal attacks against me.

[Tumbulu]

100. You support how precise these guys were 30 years ago

in which lab did you work?

Or are you just spouting the koolaid propaganda?

[HuckleB]

105. So you can't actually discuss any of this?

All you have is bizarro nonsense.

Justify your claims with a consensus of peer-reviewed evidence, please.

If you can't, then stop.

Thank you.

[Tumbulu]

106. You cannot or will not answer my question

I worked in the industry, don't begin to try to tell me what you think went on.

It was not honest or pretty.

[Cha]

4. Yay! I'd like a big ol congratulatory graphic for FB! We like to celebrate

these Victories for people over frankenfoods who love to sue if people want to see what poisons they're using in the ground.

thanks Judi Lynn

[calimary]

7. "Buy and Lie"!!! That is FABULOUS!!!!!

Dayum! Does that EVER peg it!!!!

Needs to be said, read, and SPREAD!!!!

[santamargarita]

9. I'm moving to Oregon...

[bvar22]

10. I had "hope" that we had a Labeling Advocate in 2008:

&feature=player_embedded

I was wrong,
just more Campaign BS.

[geretogo]

12. I was one of those that voted to ban the Frankenfoods from my state . The Kochs are not going to

buy this state , neither is Monica the Witch Doctor with Koch money to steal the Senate seat
from Jeff Merkly .

[Arugula Latte]

60. We had a corporate-polluter move to take over the water system here in Portland ...

That lost by a 3-1 margin. We have some smart voters here, when we get our ballots in.

Wehby is a joke. The pundits have been pretending that Merkley's seat is somehow up for grabs but there is no freaking way that will happen.

[geretogo]

68. That's a hopeful sign . I am counting on the intelligent progressive Portland voters to give the

boot to Monica the Witch .

[Archae]

13. Talk about hysteria and bullshit!

"Seed sovereignty?"

"We doesn't like real science since it interferes with our hysterical beliefs about GMO's!"

"facepalm:

[Tumbulu]

22. If you are a seed producer

and some GMO pollen fertilizes your seed crop, you lose your business. You cannot sell the seed or the crop. All the buyers test. No one wants to be sued by Monsanto either.

It is not a joke if this is your business.

[QuestForSense]

15. Some good news. I hope it spreads.

[bananas]

18. Great news - thanks for the update! nt

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R!

- And this is just the tip of the 'ol berg. The GMO trees they've created are at this very moment spreading their toxic poisons all over the planet:

[davidpdx]

24. I grew up in both counties

Both were highly conservative areas back then. Medford/Jackson County is coming around though and is much more progressive then it one was. In 2008 they picked Obama over McCain by a hair. I wish I could tell you it happened in 2012, but it didn't.

Josephine County, ha! That's a whole other story.

Only been down that way a few times in the last ten years.

[AceAcme]

26. America at its best - a salute to wise citizens exercising human rights over corporate bullying

[HuckleB]

86. It's wise to go with fear mongering nonsense, and ignore the science?

This has nothing to do with "corporate bullying." It has everything to do with anti-science bullies, pushing fear upon the public.

Corporations are not good citizens, but that doesn't mean the anti-GMO movement is any better at all.

[BuddhaGirl]

64. Way to go, Oregon!!

Awesome news

[bravenak]

111. Good!!

Corporate food mafia. GMO Gangsters.