tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post3384730734130965464..comments2023-10-17T04:51:08.765-10:00Comments on KauaiEclectic: Musings: Talk About ItJoan Conrowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-24416853579761490822015-09-11T17:16:32.368-10:002015-09-11T17:16:32.368-10:00Even if there is no taste or nutritional differenc...Even if there is no taste or nutritional difference to you, there is less pesticide residue and the growing practices are better for the planet. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-59947767118586813172015-09-09T11:15:17.468-10:002015-09-09T11:15:17.468-10:002:44
And not one fact found that gmo corn or soy ...2:44<br /><br />And not one fact found that gmo corn or soy has hurt anyone.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-41462897221623612432015-09-09T11:15:16.152-10:002015-09-09T11:15:16.152-10:002:44
And not one fact found that gmo corn or soy ...2:44<br /><br />And not one fact found that gmo corn or soy has hurt anyone.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-76518129712499614452015-09-09T07:59:51.598-10:002015-09-09T07:59:51.598-10:00"let freedom ring" Costco has organic la..."let freedom ring" Costco has organic labeling. It sells at a higher price. I can't differentiate any taste difference. The product looks the same. Just the labeling and the price is different. Smart. But we have the freedom of choice. To buy or not to buy! It is all up to you or your spouse. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-24134753277477309172015-09-08T17:13:30.272-10:002015-09-08T17:13:30.272-10:00Truthout = total misnomerTruthout = total misnomerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-59188837654201354462015-09-08T16:22:38.941-10:002015-09-08T16:22:38.941-10:00Ho hum. Another cutting edge scientific analysis f...Ho hum. Another cutting edge scientific analysis from truthout.org, an unbiased organization if there ever was one. I don't understand the author's interpretation anyway- too turgid, verbose, conjectural and opinionated to follow. Mea culpa. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-60019295352194522312015-09-08T15:12:42.942-10:002015-09-08T15:12:42.942-10:00And here is another great article explaining why t...And here is another great article explaining why there is no consensus on GMO safety. [ http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32608-growing-doubt-a-scientist-s-experience-of-gmos ]. And a short excerpt- "Some of my concerns with GMOs are "just" practical ones. I have read numerous GMO risk assessment applications. These are the documents that governments rely on to 'prove' their safety. Though these documents are quite long and quite complex, their length is misleading in that they primarily ask (and answer) trivial questions. Furthermore, the experiments described within them are often very inadequate and sloppily executed. Scientific controls are often missing, procedures and reagents are badly described, and the results are often ambiguous or uninterpretable. I do not believe that this ambiguity and apparent incompetence is accidental. It is common, for example, for multinational corporations, whose labs have the latest equipment, to use outdated methodologies. When the results show what the applicants want, nothing is said. But when the results are inconvenient, and raise red flags, they blame the limitations of the antiquated method. This bulletproof logic, in which applicants claim safety no matter what the data shows, or how badly the experiment was performed, is routine in formal GMO risk assessment.<br /><br />To any honest observer, reading these applications is bound to raise profound and disturbing questions: about the trustworthiness of the applicants and equally of the regulators. They are impossible to reconcile with a functional regulatory system capable of protecting the public."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-45607768730061542222015-09-08T14:51:19.576-10:002015-09-08T14:51:19.576-10:00Folks who don't want GMOs are always free to c...Folks who don't want GMOs are always free to choose organic!<br /><br />Speaking of choice, the folks calling for a ban on GMOs are trying to eliminate a farmer's ability to choose what seeds he/she wants to plant. Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-47723726016485966092015-09-08T14:44:50.210-10:002015-09-08T14:44:50.210-10:00"Nobody is trying to force anyone to eat GMOs..."Nobody is trying to force anyone to eat GMOs" - except at least 90% of corn and soy grown in the US is genetically engineered - not much choice!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-25545599225416974562015-09-08T11:51:17.092-10:002015-09-08T11:51:17.092-10:00Nobody is trying to force anyone to eat GMOs.Nobody is trying to force anyone to eat GMOs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-40118395974287912812015-09-08T11:36:24.222-10:002015-09-08T11:36:24.222-10:00We all have choices, either / or. Some people want...We all have choices, either / or. Some people want to force the choice selection. Either you enjoy Kauai or.... Either you eat GMO or.... Either you bruch your teeth or.... The choice is yours.... by the by two wrongs do not make a right; negative times negative = positive??? three lefts make a right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-23986728632923046692015-09-08T11:34:21.964-10:002015-09-08T11:34:21.964-10:0010:33 The abstract also includes this statement -...10:33 The abstract also includes this statement -- "Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders" -- which is especially ironic, considering one of the authors is Vandana Shiva, the queen of misleading and misrepresentative claims made by internal circles of likeminded stakeholders. <br /><br />But then, the anti-GMO movement seems totally oblivious to its own hypocrisies and ironies, which is why it's so easy to poke fun at it.Joan Conrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172330100788007499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-46131732993538874462015-09-08T10:49:52.900-10:002015-09-08T10:49:52.900-10:00"Really? Now we can't even talk publicly ..."Really? Now we can't even talk publicly about GMOs without whipping the antis into a frenzy?"<br /><br /><br />Yep, Anyone who defies the anti-gmo crowd is a knuckle dragging neanderthal that must be silenced, because without facts on your side, demonization is your only choice to keep up the insane hate-filled fantasies about children poisoning corporations and blood thirsty farmers that want to kill us all for a couple of bucks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-41903785341970380342015-09-08T10:33:34.916-10:002015-09-08T10:33:34.916-10:005:57- Here is an abstract from a link ( http://www...5:57- Here is an abstract from a link ( http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf ) which explains why there is no consensus- A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of<br />contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a<br />hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences<br />in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UNʻs Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius<br />- to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-47426660456278377192015-09-08T07:25:48.141-10:002015-09-08T07:25:48.141-10:00I googled Jonathan Latham. One item was Jonathan L...I googled Jonathan Latham. One item was Jonathan Latham phd quack. Why would they have such a thing listed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-1936158101663809522015-09-07T19:13:03.565-10:002015-09-07T19:13:03.565-10:00@5:57- Here is an abstract from a link ( http://ww...@5:57- Here is an abstract from a link ( http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf ) which explains why there is no consensus- A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of<br />contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a<br />hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences<br />in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UNʻs Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius<br />- to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-33059258764650548452015-09-07T18:00:09.590-10:002015-09-07T18:00:09.590-10:00
@1:45. what a crock. NOTHING is inherently safe. ...<br />@1:45. what a crock. NOTHING is inherently safe. why hold GMOs to that standard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-61695217246155068552015-09-07T17:57:43.751-10:002015-09-07T17:57:43.751-10:00Kevin Folta was doing biotech research long before...Kevin Folta was doing biotech research long before he got a grant from Monsanto, and it wasn't a research grant, anyway, but to support his existing educational outreach programs. In CA, the legislature mandates some faculty work with private industry to develop things that will benefit farmers. It's not unethical at all, but a way to maximize public money through partnerships with industry, which has the capital to take inventions to fruition. <br />There is most definitely consensus on the safety of GMOs among academics who understand biotech. The questioners are predominantly from other disciplines -- or getting money from the organics industry. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-69125674872869156672015-09-07T17:16:30.045-10:002015-09-07T17:16:30.045-10:002:39 Should teachers receive money from large corp...2:39 Should teachers receive money from large corporations and then do research which supports those same companies? Perhaps they should work directly for the corporations and not not as teachers at public or private schools? Or even, heaven forbid, refuse any money offered by such corporations? Perhaps that would be more ethical? Similar to Monsanto employees who take a leave of absence to work for the federal government which regulates Monsanto. People in such positions should have no monetary connections to the corporations they are responsible for overseeing. And by the way, there is no scientific consensus concerning GMOʻs and their safety and effect upon the environment. Thousands of scientists around the world still question their safety- consensus means a general overall agreement, not just 51%-49% majority rule. For consensus you would probably need more than 90-95% in favor of something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-31039961068261564722015-09-07T14:39:53.837-10:002015-09-07T14:39:53.837-10:00
Dr. Folta is a teacher, and he is teaching what i...<br />Dr. Folta is a teacher, and he is teaching what is recognized as the scientific consensus.<br />http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2015/09/recent-events-faq.html<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-48726518438163326602015-09-07T10:06:09.093-10:002015-09-07T10:06:09.093-10:008:59, you got that right. Folks whipped up about t...8:59, you got that right. Folks whipped up about the money of the seed companies vs. anti-GMO NGOs should all go see the film Moneyball. In the end, it's about what your money buys you. Moneyball is about the 2002 season of the Oakland A's, who won 103 games that year with a team payroll of $41 million. The New York Yankees, by comparison, had a payroll that topped $125 million. Granted, the seed companies have more money at their disposal. But do they spend it wisely? No, they hire blundering PR firms and conduct feckless saturation media buy campaigns. The anti-GMO nonprofits -- and there are many of them (Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network, Earthjustice, etc.)-- play small ball, i.e., lots of allegations, court actions, agitprop videos, marches against Monsanto, etc. It's effective organizing, though it's often reckless or worse in the fact department. There's a great story about Lyndon Johnson's first run for Congress in Texas back in the 1940s. As election day neared, the polls had Lyndon in a dead heat with his opponent. Lyndon huddled with his campaign staff. "Let's put out the word," he proposed, "that my opponent (a farmer) enjoys conjugal relations with his barnyard animals!" A shocked staffer said, "We can't do that. We can't call him a pig-f***er." Johnson replied, "I know that. I just want to hear the sonofabitch deny it." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288951314888330106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-36297253083780502852015-09-07T09:27:32.625-10:002015-09-07T09:27:32.625-10:00It is OUR dispensary. These mainlanders coming he...It is OUR dispensary. These mainlanders coming here smoking our buds. Ruining our neighborhoods.<br />Now they want to sell our herb. What's next? Rent our our houses? Take pictures of our island? Fakas.<br />Don't let the mainland Haole's get the dispensary.<br />They are gonna run up our pot prices.<br />I am not going to apply, but I am sure whoever gets it will be corrupt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-45204865218085288472015-09-07T08:59:51.845-10:002015-09-07T08:59:51.845-10:00I read the NYT article. While it might say some tr...I read the NYT article. While it might say some trips were paid for, it clearly says the scientists in question were unbiased. And that was the crux. Did you read it? And who pays for Hoosiers trips? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-2175567706391951452015-09-07T07:43:54.355-10:002015-09-07T07:43:54.355-10:00It will be local insider political connecteds who ...It will be local insider political connecteds who get the pot license and keys to the public vault. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7875069982976812251.post-55911480617618359562015-09-07T04:11:42.662-10:002015-09-07T04:11:42.662-10:006:40. I am a patient.....not a criminal6:40. I am a patient.....not a criminalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com