Skip to main content

Oregonians will have the opportunity to vote this November on the consumer's right to know what is in their food thanks to the Oregon Right to Know campaign which gathered 156,390 signatures, 118,780 of which were certified on Wednesday by the Oregon Secretary of State to place the GMO Labeling initiative on the ballot.

"In only six weeks, we were able to collect more than 31,500 signatures more than the number needed to qualify," said Sandeep Kaushik, campaign spokesman for Oregon Right to Know. "That is a powerful indication that Oregonians understand that protecting the profits of chemical conglomerates and agribusiness giants should not take precedence over the public's right to know what is in the food they eat and feed their families."
                                                                               ~ The Statesman Journal
Oregon campaign organizers expect big money in opposition to flood the state as it did in Washington and California; however, they are also confident that their measure will pass and become law. Organizers cite a two-and-a-half year grassroots effort resulting in a strong base of public support for the GMO labeling bill and also a greater awareness of the GMO issue by Oregonians due to the recent successful Jackson County ban on GMO cultivation and last year's wheat GMO contamination which threatened Oregon's Asian markets.

Learning from its neighbors, the framers of the Oregon Right to Know initiative strengthened the language to remove any ambiguities, such as specifically naming human food so that misinformation passed by opponents in the Washington campaign about pet food would not confuse the issue. The initiative is carefully crafted to integrate with existing labeling standards and would require no new regulatory bureaus since the Oregon Department of Agriculture currently has a food labeling department.  Only food that currently requires labeling would fall under the Act and would apply to all raw and processed food, requiring a small informational label on packaging or a sign near produce. The initiative gives the state the right to take action against violations; however, it does not mandate it.

A recent Oregon Public Broadcasting poll of Oregonians revealed that a full 77% of Oregonians agreed that GMO labeling is necessary.  Similar polls done in Washington state prior to their GMO labeling campaign showed similar levels of support. The power of big money from Biotech Giants Monsanto and Syngenta to spread seeds of doubt through misinformation is such that the Washington polls showed a precipitous drop to 45% of those Washington state voters supporting GMO labeling just prior to the election. Oregon Right to Know organizers believe they will be able to sustain the current level of support for the GMO labeling initiative despite the tsunami of well-financed and powerful opposition.

[Sandeep] Kaushik [Oregon Right to Know Communication Director] said his side has heard the farm bureau’s anti-labeling talking points before – and this time they’ll keep the support of voters as the campaign plays out.

“We really think we’re going to win this race by Oregonians talking one-on-one with other Oregonians about why this issue is so important,” he said. “And having those folks counteract the false claims that are coming from the other side.”
                                                                                 ~ Oregon Public Broadcasting

Ironically, Monsanto supported GMO labeling in the U. K. during the late 1990s. An excerpt from Monsanto advertisements during that time included the following quote which could have come from any state's labeling campaign:
“Recently you may have noticed a label appearing on some of the food in your supermarket,” one advertisement said. “This is to inform you about the use of biotechnology in food.

Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.”
                                                                                                  ~ Seattle Times

There is a wide diversity of opinion concerning genetically modified organisms. Each of the 156,390 Oregonians who signed the petition to place this initiative on the ballot had their own personal reasons for doing so; however, all of them agreed with this one simple statement: The right of Oregonians to know what is in their food outweighs any manufacturer's right to withhold that information.

Below find the complete text of the proposed measure. Here is a link to donate to Oregon Right to Know.

Ballot Measure 92

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
AN ACT REQUIRING THE LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RAW AND PACKAGED FOOD

Section 1. Findings and Declarations

(1) Oregon consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase were produced with genetic engineering so they can make informed purchasing decisions. Labeling is necessary to ensure that Oregon consumers are fully and reliably informed about the products they purchase and consume. Labels provide informed consent and prevent consumer deception. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the public wants to know if its food was produced with genetic engineering, for a variety of reasons.

(2) For multiple health, personal, economic, environmental, religious, and cultural reasons, the State of Oregon finds that food produced with genetic engineering should be labeled as such, as evidenced by the following.

(3) In the United States, there is currently no federal or Oregon State requirement that genetically engineered foods be labeled. In contrast, sixty-four countries, including Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, Russia, India, the European Union member states, and other key U.S. trading partners, already have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on food labels. In 2011, Codex Alimentarius, the food standards organization of the United Nations, stated that governments are free to decide on whether and how to label foods produced with genetic engineering.

(4) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require or conduct safety studies of genetically engineered foods. Instead, any safety consultations are voluntary, and genetically engineered food developers may decide what information to provide to the agency. Market approval of genetically engineered food is based on industry research alone. There have been no long-term or epidemiological studies in the U.S. that examine the safety of human consumption of genetically engineered foods.

(5) The genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences. Manipulating genes via genetic engineering and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always predictable or controllable. Mixing plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes through genetic engineering in combinations that cannot occur in nature may produce results that lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.

(6) U.S. government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants via genetic engineering can cause a variety of significant problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering may increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens in foods and create new toxicants or allergens with consequent health concerns.

(7) Independent scientists are limited from conducting safety and risk-assessment research of genetically engineered materials used in food products due to industry restrictions on research of genetically engineered materials used in food products.

(8) Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can provide a method for detecting, at a large epidemiological scale, the potential health effects of consuming such foods.

(9) Without mandatory disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food may unknowingly violate their dietary and religious beliefs.

(10) Numerous foreign markets with restrictions on foods produced with genetic engineering have restricted imports of U.S. crops due to concerns about genetic engineering. Some foreign markets are choosing to purchase agricultural products from countries other than the U.S. because genetically engineered crops are not identified in the U.S., which makes it impossible for buyers to determine what does or does not meet their national labeling laws or restrictions and thus renders U.S. products less desirable.

(11) Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method of preserving the economic value of exports or domestically sensitive markets with restrictions on, or prohibitions against, genetic engineering.

(12) Oregon’s agricultural economy is remarkably diverse, third overall among the states. Two hundred twenty-five agricultural commodities are produced in Oregon, and the state is the top producer nationally of 14 of those. Over 80 percent of Oregon’s agricultural products are exported out of state, and agricultural products rank second in value among Oregon’s exports. Preserving the identity, quality, and reliability of Oregon’s agricultural products and exports is critical to Oregon’s economic well-being.

(13) The organic food industry is a rapidly growing industry, with 2.7 billion dollars in growth in 2012. While total U.S. food sales grew at a rate of 3.7 percent, the organic food industry grew at a rate of 10.2 percent in 2012, accounting for 31.5 billion dollars in sales. Sales of organic fruits and vegetables account for 43 percent of those new dollars, 34.8 percent of total organic food sales, and 10.3 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales. Organic dairy grew at a rate of 7.1 percent in 2012 and comprises over 6 percent of the total U.S. dairy market. Trade industry data shows that, over the long term, organic farming is more profitable and economically secure than conventional farming. Organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds. Nonetheless, organic crops are routinely threatened with transgenic contamination from neighboring fields of genetically engineered crops. The risk of contamination can erode public confidence in organic products, significantly undermining the job-creating, economy-boosting growth of the organic market. Requiring the labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering will help protect organics nationwide by increasing identification of genetically engineered foods through the food production process, thereby reducing the risk of contamination.

(14) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data shows that Oregon ranks 3rd in organic farm-gate sales at $233 million a year. This important element of Oregon’s economy must be protected. Foods identified as non-genetically engineered constitute the fastest growing market segment in agriculture. However, only a small portion of the food industry participates in voluntary labeling of foods claimed not to be the product of genetic engineering. Nor are there consistent standards for such labeling, or for enforcement of voluntary labels. As such, voluntary labels are insufficient to provide consumers with adequate information on whether or not the food they are purchasing was produced with genetic engineering and may be misleading.

(15) Requiring that foods produced through genetic engineering be labeled as such will create additional market opportunities for producers who are not certified as organic and whose products are not produced through genetic engineering. Such additional market opportunities will also contribute to vibrant and diversified agricultural communities.

(16) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can have serious effects on the environment. For example, in 2013, 93 percent of all soy grown in the U.S. was engineered to be herbicide resistant. In fact, the vast majority of genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand herbicides, and therefore promote indiscriminate herbicide use. As a result, genetically engineered, herbicide resistant crops have caused 527 million pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation’s farmland. These toxic herbicides damage the vitality and quality of our soil, harm wildlife, contaminate our drinking water, and pose health risks to consumers and farmworkers. Further, because of the consequent massive increase in the use of herbicides, herbicide-resistant weeds have developed and flourished, infesting farm fields and roadsides, complicating weed control for farmers, and causing farmers to resort to more and increasingly toxic herbicides.

(17) The people of Oregon should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods produced in ways that can lead to such environmental harm.

(18) Because neither the FDA nor the U.S. Congress requires the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering, the State should require foods produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as such in order to serve the interests of the State, prevent consumer deception, prevent potential risks to human health, promote food safety, protect cultural and religious practices, protect the environment, and promote economic development.

Section 2. Statement of Purpose

(1) The Genetically Engineered Raw and Packaged Food Labeling Act would result in establishing a consistent and enforceable standard for labeling foods produced using genetic engineering, and thus provide the citizens of Oregon with knowledge of how their food is produced.

(2) The purposes of this Act are:

a. Public health and food safety. Promote food safety and protect public health by enabling consumers to avoid potential risks associated with genetically engineered foods, and serve as a risk management tool enabling consumers, physicians, and scientists to identify unintended health effects resulting from consumption of genetically engineered foods.

b. Environmental impacts. Assist consumers who are concerned about the potential effects of genetic engineering on the environment to make informed purchasing decisions.

c. Consumer confusion and deception. Reduce and prevent consumer confusion and deception and promote the disclosure of factual information on food labels to allow consumers to make informed decisions.

d. Promoting and protecting economic development. Create and protect non-genetically engineered markets and enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

e. Protecting religious and cultural practice. Provide consumers with data from which they may make informed decisions for personal, religious, moral, cultural, or ethical reasons.

(3) This law shall be liberally construed to fulfill these purposes.

Section 3. Definitions

(1) As used in this Act, except as otherwise provided, terms shall have the meaning given to them in ORS Title 49, Chapter 616, except that the term “food” shall include food only for human consumption and not any food for consumption by animals.

(2) “Raw food” shall have the same meaning as raw agricultural commodity as defined in ORS 616.205(17).

(3) “Packaged food” means any food offered for retail sale in Oregon, other than raw food and food served, sold, or provided ready to eat in any bake sale, restaurant, or cafeteria, and that is already otherwise subject to the provisions of ORS 616.250 prohibiting misbranding.

(4) “Genetically engineered” means produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:

(a) In vitro nucleic acid techniques which include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA), direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling; or
 (b) Methods of fusing cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombinantion barriers, and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection such as conjugation, transduction, and hybridization.
For purposes of this definition: “In vitro nucleic acid techniques” include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems; techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as biolistics, microinjection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, microencapsulation, and liposome fusion.

Section 4. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Raw and Packaged Foods

Commencing January 1, 2016, all raw food and packaged food that is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering must be labeled in accordance with the provisions of this Act and is otherwise misbranded if that fact is not disclosed.

Section 5. Means of Labeling

(1) In the case of raw food packaged for retail sale, the manufacturer shall include the words “Genetically Engineered” clearly and conspicuously on the front or back of the package of such commodity. In the case of raw agricultural commodities that are not separately packaged or labeled, the retailer shall place a clear and conspicuous label on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale.

(2) To make clear who is responsible for compliance with the requirements of this section, in the case of raw food, the retailer is responsible only for point of purchase shelf labeling. The supplier must label each container used for packaging, holding, and/or transporting any raw food produced with genetic engineering that is delivered directly to Oregon retailers.

(3) In the case of any packaged food containing some products of genetic engineering, the manufacturer must label the product in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such food product with the words “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

(4) This law shall not be construed to require either the listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients that were genetically engineered or that the term “genetically engineered” be placed immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.

Section 6. Enforcement

(1) The Attorney General may bring an action to enjoin a violation of this Act in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Any injured citizen of Oregon acting in the public interest may bring an action to enjoin a violation of this Act by a manufacturer or retailer, in any court of competent jurisdiction, if the action is commenced more than sixty (60) days after the citizen has given notice of the alleged violation to the Attorney General and to the alleged violator. The court may, in such an action, award to a citizen who is a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action, but the court may not award any monetary damages.

(3) No person shall be subject to an injunction or responsible for payment of prevailing party attorneys’ fees for failure to label any food if (a) in the case of packaged food, the materials produced through genetic engineering do not account for more than nine tenths of one percent of the total weight of the packaged food; or (b) the food has not been produced with the knowing or intentional use of genetic engineering.

(4) For purposes of this Act, food will be considered not to have been produced with the knowing or intentional use of genetic engineering if:

(a) such food is lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501 et seq., which already prohibits genetic engineering of foods;
(b) in the case of a manufacturer or retailer obligated to label any food under this Act, if such entity has obtained from whoever sold that food to them a sworn statement that the food has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered and has been segregated from, and not knowingly or intentionally commingled with, foods that may have been genetically engineered at any time. In providing such a sworn statement, a manufacturer or retailer may rely on a sworn statement from a supplier that contains such an affirmation; or
(c) an independent organization has determined that the food has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered and has been segregated from, and not knowingly or intentionally commingled with, foods that may have been genetically engineered at any time, if such a determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure (i) consistent with sampling and testing principles recommended by internationally recognized standards organizations and (ii) which does not rely on testing processed foods in which no DNA is detectable.

(5) Unless the retailer is also the producer or the manufacturer of the food and sells the food under a brand it owns, no act or omission or any retailer shall be found to be a violation of this Act except for knowing and willful failure to provide point of purchase labeling for unpackaged raw agricultural commodities. In any action in which it is alleged that a retailer has violated the provisions of this section, it shall be a defense that such retailer reasonably relied on (a) any disclosure whether a food was produced through genetic engineering contained in the bill of sale or invoice provided by the wholesaler or distributor or (b) the lack of such disclosure.

(6) No action may be brought against any farmer for any violation of any provision of this Act unless such farmer is also a retailer or manufacturer, but any farmer submitting a false sworn statement under subsection (4) of this section shall be subject to the general laws of the state pertaining to perjury.

(7) The State Department of Agriculture and/or the Oregon Health Authority shall prescribe, enact, and enforce rules necessary to implement this Act. The Department and Authority are not authorized to exempt from the requirements of Section 4 of this Act any food product that is made subject to those requirements by the provisions of this Act. The Department and/or Authority may by regulation provide that a person may be subject to an injunction and prevailing party attorneys’ fees under this Act for failure to label packaged food described in subsection 3(a) of this Section 6 at such time as the Department and/or Authority determine that the commercial availability of relevant materials not produced with genetic engineering make it economically and commercially practicable to apply the labeling requirements of this Act to such packaged food.

Section 7. Severability

If any part or application of this Act is held invalid with respect to any particular raw or packaged food, situation, or entity, the remainder of this Act or its application to all other raw and packaged foods, situations, and entities shall not be affected.

Originally posted to Community Rights Movement on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:12 AM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Koscadia.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This diary is not about GMO science or safety (17+ / 0-)

    but the consumer's right to know what they are eating and feeding their families.

    Using the free market concept of supply and demand, their is high consumer demand for labeling.

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:14:46 AM PDT

    •  Of course it is. (7+ / 0-)

      You only need to look at the text of the legislation, which you have included in this diary,  to see its blatant attempt to scare people into thinking GMOs are a health or safety threat.

      •  As opposed to... (13+ / 0-)

        manipulating public behavior by deliberately keeping people ignorant of what they are consuming by withholding product information, because privileged technocrats have decided on behalf of the masses what people deserve, or don't deserve, to know.

        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

        by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:01:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. (14+ / 0-)

          This has been hidden privileged information for twenty years and that tends to make people a little mistrustful.

          Even people who are not opposed to GMO products support the right to know. Our food is labeled with so much information and labels change all the time with no hardship on trade at all. "new" and "improved" are very common additions.

          It is a very weak argument to say that people will be "scared".

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:18:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What they are consuming... (2+ / 0-)

          is food.  You have not demonstrated there is a meaningful difference between food produced with GMO's and food produced without them.

          •  Biotech has their cake and is eating it too (10+ / 0-)

            By the left hand, Gov't deemed it unique enough to patent, while on the right hand, deeming it not unique enough to require independent testing.

            Again, this diary is about the democratic process of initiative which gives citizens the right to bring matters they deem important to a vote of the people. There is a strong market demand for labeling.

            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

            by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:04:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  plant hybrids are unique enough... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mem from somerville

              to patent yet require no label to inform people they are in their food.

              I suspect the democratic process in Georgia would have kept slavery and Jim Crow alive for additional decades, at least.

              If there is such a strong market for labeling then you should have no problem getting GMO free producers to voluntarily label their products a such.

              •  One can't say that (4+ / 0-)

                a democratic process supports an undemocratic state. There is either democracy, or not. Slavery isn't democratic, and any society which allows it isn't democratic.

                But withholding information isn't democratic, when it comes to what people consume. Who gets to know, and who doesn't? And who decides that? It is a basic right, in my view, just like having the right to having autonomy and not be a slave.

                Are we not all suffering from lack of freedom (not to the level of chattel slaves) if we don't have the right to know what we're being fed?

                This is how slavery begins. One class has privileges another class lacks. Some will know if the food is GMO, some won't have that right. Two classes of people, with one class forcing another class into obedience.

                My god...

                "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:20:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  But, you can find out what the name is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RiveroftheWest

                Therefore find out what they are hybrids of.

                It's available, unlike the GMOs have been.



                Women create the entire labor force.
                ---------------------------------------------
                Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                by splashy on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:25:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  What bald-faced technocratic sophistory (6+ / 0-)

            Technocrats don't have a right to autocratically dictate what is a difference, or what isn't, as if that province belongs only to a special class.

            This involves issues of long term ethical, philosophical, environmental, and social impact that we all have a voice in determining.

            That you want to foist it on people without their consent, by stealth, is authoritarian.

            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

            by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "sophistry" ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              occupystephanie

              "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

              by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:21:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  In truth, this issue is a civil rights issue. (6+ / 0-)

              Do citizens have the right to demand that corporations label what they find offensive in their products? It matters little what the offense is; it matters a great deal that--so far--corporations have resisted that demand by exerting their political muscle and great wealth.

              All we want is a label like 64 nations in the world already have. It is not an impossible request.

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:52:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit (3+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              mem from somerville, emelyn, Mote Dai
              Hidden by:
              occupystephanie

              You haven't demonstrated there is any difference between crops produced by genetic engineering and crops produced by any other method.  For all we know, the common yellow dessert banana will bring about the end of civilization.

              •  Who elected you (3+ / 0-)

                as the arbiter?

                "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:00:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Science /nt (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emelyn, Mote Dai
                  •  Science, dear person (4+ / 0-)

                    is not a sentient being capable of electing anyone. Science is knowledge, but knowledge can't take an action. It takes people to do that, and people are fallible, including people who call themselves "scientists" (as if that makes them certified mentats free of bias and personal preferences).

                    And in our era of rabid capitalism, science has been corrupted to serve a different master than the people, and many people now think "products" of "science" are the equivalent of science made manifest, as if it must be allowed to be used as if enjoying civil rights, with sacrosanct place to exist in the almighty free market.

                    In short, your answer reveals you really don't know much about the difference between ethics, applied technology, and science. There is a difference.

                    No, science did not, and could not, elect anyone to positions of technocratic authority. People do that.

                    "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                    by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:54:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

                      This is hilarious. My point wasn't that science elects people. My point is that, in science, if you're electing people, you're doing it wrong. Science isn't up for debate, at least not for debate among people who don't know a single thing about it. Leave it to the professionals. They'll tell us what's going on. And the professionals agree: You might as well require the labeling of the particular celestial alignment at the time of harvest, just to cater to the whims of astrologists.

                      •  lol (6+ / 0-)
                        Leave it to the professionals. They'll tell us what's going on.
                        And when those professionals are also mostly making a killing on these products, we can still trust them?

                        We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                        by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:28:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, you miss the point (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        occupystephanie
                        Who elected you (1+ / 0-)

                        as the arbiter?

                        Science
                        You don't understand the logic. Someone has to decide, in the end, how a people will live. Who decides what a scientist is? Who gets to have the right to determine who is part of that class, and who isn't? How to they achieve authority? Only by the consent of the people, whether by their tacit agreement, or their collective voice. In the end, it is the people who determine who has authority, and how science is applied, or not. Scientists can form a consensus, but that isn't law. And applied technology is fraught with unforeseen consequences. No scientist, or body of such persons, unless thought to be godlike, can see the future in all its myriad possibility. Thus, technology isn't simply subject to the opinions of the bio-physical sciences, but to ethicists, historians, social scientists, native people, workers, anyone and everyone with a human interest.

                        When it comes to science that protects us and protects the environment, such as climate science, I tend to gladly and willingly defer, since that serves to protect the environment, and curb technology that is harmful and improperly applied. It, in fact, is science which leads to restricting badly applied science. It, in fact, supports the principle of precaution in applying technology to the environment and the ecology.

                        But when it comes to invasive forms of technology that could change my life, my world, my food, the biosphere that I am a part of, and which I have an interest in, and have rights to use and possession, and to occupy, so as to stay alive and enjoy life as an autonomous person, I insist on having a voice in the final decision, and I will not allow myself to be relegated to a second class. I will read, listen, study, confer, consult widely, but in the end, I have a right, as a child of this biosphere, to protect my interests as I see them.

                        Biotechnology is fraught with issues of ethics, of deciding what doors we will open, what path we will follow as a society, of how we define ourselves as a species and as people, and how we want to shape our world. It isn't simply a technical debate, but one of wider issues, of rights, of liberty, of autonomy, of authority. It is one of choosing paths, of seeking what might be better alternatives, of reaching crossroads that lead in disparate directions.

                        Unless you equate people to the omniscience of gods, one must concede that no human, no matter how well trained or how intelligent, has the totality of knowledge to predict what sort of unintended outcomes may arise from technology, and at this juncture, only a fool would not see the history and what faces us to know this is an indisputable fact.

                        Bakunin said it better in an essay 150 years ago. Excerpt:

                        Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

                        If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God.  Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

                        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                        by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:04:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  No science is involved. Scientists admit (3+ / 0-)

                    that this stuff is no safer than other food, which does bear labels so that consumers can make intelligent decisions based on their own specific medical conditions, requirements and the like.

                    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                    by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:08:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Wild Seafood vs Farmed Seafood (6+ / 0-)

            Has been required to be labeled for almost 10 years.  Who proved the meaningful difference between the two types of fish?

            Country of origin labels have been required since early 2000's.  Who proved that Peruvian Limes are nutritionally distinct from California limes to justify such onerous regulation?

            Any fruit juice made from concentrate has been required to label it accordingly (not just once but in every instance where the word "juice" is used on the label it must be accompanied by the either "from concentrate" or "reconstituted").  This has been in place for DECADES and isn't even a different food, just one with water removed and added back in later.

            And yet, the customer deserves to know about every single one of these examples so they can make their own food choices.

            And none of these multi-billion dollar industries seems to be suffering from making this information readily available to customers.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:04:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Only in a superficial, trivial and almost (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            occupystephanie, RiveroftheWest

            meaningless sense. Tautologies contain no information. We define what we eat as food, so what we eat is food, and that tells us absolutely nothing about it. Peanuts are food. Peanuts can also kill.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:04:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, allergens kill (0+ / 0-)

              Peanut allergies and GMO are completely different things.  Do not mix them.  

              I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

              by Mote Dai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:18:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sigh. Allergies are real, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                occupystephanie, Emmy, Kathy Scheidel

                and GMOs can contain allergens. Honest GMO researchers admit that. Do not confuse GMOs with magik.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:03:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So if a GMO peanut... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wildweasels

                  contains the same allergen as a non-GMO peanut,  should it be labeled as a danger because it is a peanut or because it is a GMO?

                  •  Your moronic query, provide your own (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    occupystephanie

                    answer. If a GMO tomato turns out to contain an allergen or significantly enhanced quantities not in regular tomatoes, or or significantly enhanced quantities of one that is minimally present, should it be unlabeled because it is a GMO?

                    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                    by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:54:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Labeling it as a GMO... (0+ / 0-)

                      would tell the consumer nothing. If there were any merit to your irrational fears, your worthless labeling system would leave a trail of bodies as it offered no useful information to the consumer.  Fortunately, your irrational fears are wholly without merit.

                      •  False. Your knowledge of medicine and (0+ / 0-)

                        medical problems is lacking. A lot of people need to use whitelists in deciding what to eat. Knowing that something has been modified to produce one or more chemicals not normally present in it gives them useful information for making informed decisions as to what they desire to try eating that is outside of their whitelist. IF tomatoes aren't on their whitelist anyway, no big deal, but it they are, then they are warned that prior experience with tomatoes is no guarantee as to how they will react to this particular tomato.

                        Learn some biology, in fact, learn a lot of biology. People are not robots or cars, very large numbers of people have adverse reactions to foods daily that are not part of the standard "food allergy" syndrome.

                        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                        by enhydra lutris on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:13:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your knowledge of words is lacking. (0+ / 0-)

                          Labeling something, "This  product contains GMOs" doesn't tell anybody anything about allergens.  If ANY food product contains an allergen that poses a threat to consumers, that specific allergen ought to be noted.  I have already stated as much.  You are either too stupid or too big an asshole to understand.  Maybe both.

                          •  You don't understand simple english, (0+ / 0-)

                            are prevented from doing so by some mental set or are being intentionally obtuse. I'm not talking abut peanuts, or known allergens here. It is telling that the real scientists working with GMOs admit that some of them could have a deleterious effect on some persons, but you refuse to do so.

                            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                            by enhydra lutris on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 07:24:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wildweasels

              I hope you are not siding with these nutjobs.  peanuts are a specific allergen.  GMOs are not.  Unless you can show that GMO's universally cause a specific allergy or set of allergies, labeling is not at all useful.

    •  Then we'd have voluntary labeling for non-GMO f... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mem from somerville

      Then we'd have voluntary labeling for non-GMO food.

      •  Which exists, works fine, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billybush, TFinSF, FG, LakeSuperior

        and costs folks who don't share the philosophical objection nothing. Sorted.

        What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:03:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong (6+ / 0-)

          Getting the non-GMO label costs the manufacturer money. It is small and does not cover the nation's food supply. This is something that the citizens are demanding that the market do. There is a strong demand for labeling nationwide.

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:13:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  GMO-free producers ... (3+ / 0-)

            are able to charge more for their products which would easily cover the cost of labeling.

          •  No, not that label. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TFinSF

            That's fine to use, like Kosher, and it's how this should be handled. But food vendors don't have to do that.

            On my Tofurkey, there's this label:

            Ingredients: Water, wheat protein, organic tofu (water, organic soybeans, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride), non genetically engineered canola oil, natural vegetarian flavors, shoyu soy sauce (water, non genetically engineered soy beans, wheat, salt, culture), non genetically engineered corn starch, white bean flour, garbonzo bean flour, lemon juice from concentrate, garlic, onion, calcium lactate from beets.
            On this tofu I bought:
             photo 1e3e9c86-0113-419f-89ae-ac96c38a27af_zps959e7c80.jpg

            There are no barriers to this at all.

            What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

            by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:01:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No barriers, yes, (4+ / 0-)

              and smart marketers are beginning to do this because the demand for labeling is huge. The voice of the public is ignored while corporations are given whatever they want by our politicians.
              .
               I see Asian characters on your package and assume it may not be an America product. Also curious as to why you eat non-GMO tofu when you support Biotech products for others.

              This ballot measure is the culmination of two-and-a-half years of effort by citizens to put labeling in place by a government that is supposed to serve its people and not corporate profits. If you were an Oregon voter, you could vote on this, but your vote would not count more than once.

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:19:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the only tofu available. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not a food zealot like some people are. But at least it's not organic; I dislike the idea of how much more land it takes to farm.

                However, if you wish to make the poor choice to spend more money to destroy more land, that's up to you. What I don't think you have the right to do is put uninformative labels on food that will result in higher costs to me based on your personal philosophy.

                What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:41:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The squirrels seem to have an opinion too (3+ / 0-)

                  corn

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:43:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow, that's so convincing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    charlatan, wildweasels

                    And not what we call "evidence".

                    But that explains a lot about your grasp of data.

                    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                    by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:18:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nice try (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      occupystephanie

                      But it is interesting, I'll say that. I offer it as humor, but you whack away as if I was submitting "science."

                      I don't know who tried this, but if it were consistently refused by wild animals, in favor of organic, I would find it significant. They have fine senses of smell, and cats, even bees, have apparently been trained to detect cancer in humans by smell.

                      Get a grip. It is a photo, that's all.

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:19:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  And is it an American product? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OKath, Emmy, RiveroftheWest

                  I would bet not which means your point was lost.

                  Land is made up of soil. Drenching the soil with herbicides and pesticides, which most GMO crops are designed for, kills the beneficial microbes, infauna and tiny fungi in the soil necessary for nutrients to become available to the food grown there. The agrochemical model of agriculture destroys the soil.

                  That is a myth that GMO labeling causes higher costs but thanks for the industry talking point.

                  We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                  by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:07:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes it is an American product. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mote Dai, wildweasels

                    So do try to hang on to the point without free-range fictionalizing. I'm sure it's hard, but give it a shot.

                    This label doesn't tell you a think about herbicides or pesticides. That's what I keep trying to tell you. The stuff you claim to care about is not impacted by this terrible label. Duh.

                    How come it costs to label when it's your team? How did it suddenly become free when it doesn't suit your case?

                    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                    by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:20:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Is that tofu you photographed an American product (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OKath, Emmy

              which would prove your point that, in America, labeling can be voluntary? Or is it an Asian product where labeling is required?

              Could it be that you do not read labels? That would be rich.

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:21:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Good for them! (8+ / 0-)

    We deserve to know what is in our food. I consider it a person's RIGHT to chose what they do, or don't, want to eat, regardless of any manufactured or actual scientific "consensus" on a particular product.

    And that is a choice we cannot make if we do not know what is in the food we buy.

  •  Why not require non-GMO food to be labeled? (5+ / 0-)

    Then you can know what's in your food without needlessly fear-mongering against a technology that isn't proven to have any negative health or environmental consequences.

    •  As the measure elucidates, (8+ / 0-)

      a system for labeling non-GMO food or a voluntary system is expensive and difficult to put in place.

      You have hit upon the only defense against labeling that the opponents have come up with and that of "frightening" consumers.

      Honestly, those who are still eating processed foods, which contain the bulk of GMO ingredients, are not reading the labels now and they won't after labeling goes through. What it will do is give those citizens who want more choice in what they put on their tables for their families will then have the information that they need.

      Personal choice.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:43:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where does it say that labeling non-GMO food wo... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        Where does it say that labeling non-GMO food would be overly burdensome or expensive? I didn't see that.

        •  here: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OKath, Emmy, RiveroftheWest
          (14) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data shows that Oregon ranks 3rd in organic farm-gate sales at $233 million a year. This important element of Oregon’s economy must be protected. Foods identified as non-genetically engineered constitute the fastest growing market segment in agriculture. However, only a small portion of the food industry participates in voluntary labeling of foods claimed not to be the product of genetic engineering. Nor are there consistent standards for such labeling, or for enforcement of voluntary labels. As such, voluntary labels are insufficient to provide consumers with adequate information on whether or not the food they are purchasing was produced with genetic engineering and may be misleading.

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:12:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The defense against labeling is... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mem from somerville

        it is unnecessary.  Your belief that GMOs may be harmful is a non-fact-based belief and entirely arbitrary.  There could be any number of things people would like to know about the food they consume.  Would you support mandatory labeling of food products with the ethnicity of the farmers if a segment of the population were making a big stink about it?  I would hope not.

        Anyway, you are the one asking for a government mandate and you have not produced a single defense of mandatory GMO labeling.  I think the burden is yours.

    •  That would do the trick without the first amend... (0+ / 0-)

      That would do the trick without the first amendment defect.

    •  I would answer that non-GMO food (4+ / 0-)

      may be harder to be certain of.

      The producers of GMO foods know that their products were the result of genetic modification.

      Someone selling combinations of foods (e.g. packaged salads) may be much less certain about the origins of individual components--especially if we accept that GMO producers are committed to hiding their practices, for example by opposing efforts to label them.

      This Oregonian will be voting for the labeling law.

      I strongly suggest the GMO producers plan ahead, and develop a narrative about the processes involved--perhaps going beyond the basic requirements of the law to inform Oregonians about how their food was grown/developed. This might mean more detailed labeling than the law requires.

      If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

      by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:16:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So embarrassing to see Dems support (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OHdog, TFinSF

    bad science policy.

    I like how they argue that's labelings too expensive, insufficient information, and misleading--while opting for an expensive, insufficient information and misleading label.

    Sweet, sweet irony.

    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:21:02 PM PDT

    •  Again, this is not about GMO science (6+ / 0-)

      but citizen's rights to demand accurate labeling for personal choice.

      The voluntary non-GMO labeling is insufficient to cover our food system and it--once again--shifts the cost of these GMO products to those who grow and sell non-GMO (or real) food. It is backwards. Consumer demand is overwhelming for labeling. If we lived in a free market system, we would already have it. Corporate interests block supply and demand from operating as it ought to.

      c. Consumer confusion and deception. Reduce and prevent consumer confusion and deception and promote the disclosure of factual information on food labels to allow consumers to make informed decisions.

      d. Promoting and protecting economic development. Create and protect non-genetically engineered markets and enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

      e. Protecting religious and cultural practice. Provide consumers with data from which they may make informed decisions for personal, religious, moral, cultural, or ethical reasons.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:34:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hobby Lobby says the same thing. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billybush, TFinSF, FG

        It's about their personal choice, while they lie about the science of reproduction. It's identical.

        What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conflating citizens real concerns about the food (9+ / 0-)

          they eat with corporate machinations is disingenuous at best.

          The root word of Democratic is democracy and citizens are exercising it here. Do you think that only scientists should be allowed to vote? You cannot decide the food that people chose to eat. Those that care about this issue--and it is all over the map--will use the information to chose their food. How can this matter to you except that you appear to work in the industry?

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:10:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You assume... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mem from somerville, FG

            that your concerns about GMOs are real whereas Hobby Lobby's concerns about birth control are not.  The science is not with either of you.  Both of you expect public policy to reflect your sincerely held, but non-fact-based beliefs.  I don't wish to be held hostage to those beliefs.

            •  Actually you have this rather confused (3+ / 0-)

              Hobby Lobby, like the pro-GMO technology advocates, want to foist their authority (and thus force their autocratic decisions, whether moral, religious, or technological) on people against their will.  It matters not whether the authoritarianism is based on theocracy, or technocracy, it is still an undemocratic attempt by a privileged class to manipulate people against their will.

              The GMO advocates are more akin to purveyors of various forms of technology (oil companies, agribusiness, auto-industries)  brought to the market-place, which have social and environmental impact, without regulation or social awareness and input by the citizenry.

              The trend is to get the world dependent on a new technology, and then argue we can't do without it. By the time people realize what it is and that they don't want it (for whatever reason), its almost impossible to undo the impact and remove it from usage.

              Science is not good or bad, rather it is what you do with it, how it impacts the shape of society, long term, in terms of lifestyle, habitability, quality of life, and unforeseen social and environmental consequences. Science therefore doesn't have rights in any sense that gives specialists privilege, for science is not a sentient god, but rather knowledge in the hands of fallible humans. And pure science is different than applications of technology, which can have a wide range of unintended consequences which no one is smart enough to foresee in its totality. Hence the obvious arrogance in those who think they do foresee all possibilities. Sometimes science generates overconfidence and too much certainty. A healthy caution, and humble uncertainty, is very important when it comes to technology. If one doesn't know why this is true, then they are ignoring history, and what is facing us.

              We need social scientists, ethicists, as well as common people, farmers, workers, consumers, to be part of decision making as well as scientists who haven't exactly exhibited a good track record of self-objectivity of their products of applied technology.

              Global warming science is an example of science that tells us of the affects of badly applied technology and the consequences of incaution in applied technology. Equating people who advise caution to climate science deniers reverses the more apt comparison. Its nonsense, and a form of propaganda and sophistry.

              "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

              by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's false. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                billybush

                Consumers have numerous ways to either not use birth control, or to buy specific non-GMO foods. What they don't have the right to do is force their philosophical positions on others, which is what this labeling does.

                What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:03:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The biotech industry has hidden GMO products (6+ / 0-)

                  from us for twenty years and you say people who want labeling now are forcing their thinking on you?

                  Labels are for information. The label on your condoms helps you avoid conception. Do you object to those labels?

                  Most people who eat processed food will not even look at the labels. They will continue to eat their Cheetos and Coke. Labeling is to give people a choice and does not force anything on anyone.

                  We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                  by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:07:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This label does not provide information on (0+ / 0-)

                    whether GMO-altered ingredients are present in processed foods or not. We've already gone over this. It's a process label, just like Kosher, and should be handled the same way.

                    If you have philosophical objections to the production, the community that has those issues should be responsible for setting the standards, testing, and handling offenders. The taxpayers don't pay for Kosher labels, and they shouldn't pay for these.

                    I actually haven't read a condom label--can you show me one? And is it mandatory by the goverment?

                    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                    by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:48:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You've reverse the logic (5+ / 0-)

                  Manipulating the public to consume without adequate information is undemocratic and authoritarian. You're thinking from such a position of privilege you don't realize how anti-democratic you've become in your advocacy. The food supply doesn't really belong to you. It belongs to all of us.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:09:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree, ZhenRen (5+ / 0-)

                    It is embarrassing to me that a member of the Democratic Party would hate citizens exercising their rights to the initiative process and ballot box. It is virtually all we have left of our Democracy.

                    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                    by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:22:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So then... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mem from somerville

                      I assume you would support a state voting to force doctors to tell women that abortions cause cancer.

                      •  That's the result (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        occupystephanie, JamieG from Md

                        of religious authoritarianism, and we need to work against that, and liberate people from its influence. People will always become coerced by various forms of authority, and we have a long way to go to stop that influence.

                        If we don't respect the right of people to self-determinism, on basic issues such as birth control, as well as the food we eat, we can expect more of these efforts to autocratically intrude on the freedom to make choices.  You want the same thing these anti-abortionists want, but with food and diet, instead, which is to autocratically tell people how to live their lives.

                        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                        by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:54:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But that is exactly what you are advocating for. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          mem from somerville, wildweasels

                          except you have replaced religion with a social agenda.

                          •  Quite the opposite (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            occupystephanie

                            We need to foster respect for individual autonomy, rather than coercing upon people our ideas.

                            Forcing doctors to lie about abortions, as well as lying or withholding information to people about the food they're buying, ends with the same result, despite the different perspectives behind the coercion.

                            You're basically stating that coercion is okay as long as it is something you agree with.

                            "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                            by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:38:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you are misusing... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wildweasels

                            the word "coercion".  You are not being coerced into buying anything.  You can grow your own food, or buy your food only from known GMO-free or organic sources.  the reason you don't do this is out of your own laziness, or your desire to force your personal agenda on everyone else.  Again, I could demand that GMO-free products be labeled.  I could state that if they are not labeled I am being coerced into buying them.  I could demand to know whether or not the organic tomatoes in my salsa were of a hybrid variety that protected them against Verticillium Wilt.  But mandatory food labels out to be restricted to those things that affect a product's nutritional value, or a consumer's health.  I want product labels to be based on the best science, not some political fad.

                    •  We really can't know if this person (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      occupystephanie

                      is a member of the Democratic Party or not just because s/he posts here. mfS was a member of the NNadir fan club, and if you knew anything about him, that should tell you everything.

                      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

                      by translatorpro on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:21:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  But--we keep pointing out-- (0+ / 0-)

                    this label does not provide relevant information. It's a manipulative label sponsored by the organic industry to attempt to drive sales to them. They've said so:

                    "The burning question for us all then becomes how - and how quickly - can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming?"
                    There's actually nothing that reeks of privilege more than well-fed westerners trying to scare people away from safe and nutritious food to a more expensive and land-using product.

                    What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                    by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:52:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Treating people as if too stupid (4+ / 0-)

                      to chart their own course is authoritarian and creates a master/servant relationship, an unequal class division. Suppression of information is coercive, and renders people into automatons in service of an elite minority who control the flow of information. You will create a society of idiots this way.

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:20:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This law does not provide information (0+ / 0-)

                        about the contents of the package of food. Sadly, it's counting on people to not understand that there might not be so much as a speck for GMO DNA or protein.

                        I continue to stand opposed to misinformation and fearmongering, no matter how you try to re-brand that.

                        What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                        by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:30:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mem from somerville

                I want all food to be labelled based on known health and safety risks.  You want GMO foods to be labeled based on your paranoid delusions.  I want all food to be treated equally.  You want to foist your delusions on the rest of us.  You are Hobby Lobby.

                •  You want to be in charge (4+ / 0-)

                  of how these things are defined. In the end, it is the decision of the public, not a special elite. You don't seem to realize how undemocratic that is. GMO technology is GMO technology. Put that on the label. Tell people what they are eating. If not, you're as much a threat to liberty as the theocrats.

                  "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                  by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:41:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Honestly, the pro-Biotech people (6+ / 0-)

                    come across as being arrogant elitists which is not very popular with the people. In Jackson and Josephine County, the GMO cultivation bans passed by a landslide despite--or perhaps because of--this kind of thing.

                    Oregon's motto is:

                    She flies with her own wings.
                    Oregonians tend to be an independent lot and value their rights. These rights-based initiatives are popular and corporations are not. Yet another reason to be optimistic about the outcome of the November election.

                    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                    by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yep... (4+ / 0-)

                      Thank you for the information, by the way, and for keeping us informed. I live in Oregon, near Portland, and have bees here as a third generation beekeeper.

                      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

                      by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wonderful! (4+ / 0-)

                        Loving your comments. You have added a great deal of value to the discussion.

                        Love the bees. You might like a diary I did on a protest I organized when Bayer Bee Care Tour came to town. I invited a local reporter and his and my posts on the tour were on the first page of a google search for the name. Not the PR they were looking for.

                        Do not know if you are aware of the initiative in my county (Benton) which grants legal standing to natural communities of which bees are an important part. The bees could sure use our help!

                        We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                        by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:34:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Do you want climate policy decided (0+ / 0-)

            by voters? Do you want women's reproductive health policy decided by voters? Do you want creationist labels on textbooks decided by voters? Or would you like these things to be informed by science?

            Turns out, when surveyed:

            More than 70% of respondents wanted policy decisions related to GMO labeling and use of growth hormones to be based on expert advice rather than the views of the average American.
            Oh, and by the way, is that a shill claim you are hurling?

            What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

            by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:16:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In the end, democracy is the only way (3+ / 0-)

              At the moment, climate science is being decided by industry, the same multinational industry that brings us GMO technology. It is being decided by the state, which has largely ignored the consequences. Even when people vote on these issues, it is usually big money that plays the deciding role.

              So, if in your opinion the people are too stupid to decide (assuming an un-coerced vote without the corrupting influence of money, which at the moment isn't possible) then who would decide? Specialists who are advocates of their specialty? That is precisely the definition of technocracy. Decisions of global impact and long range social consequences require everyone to have a voice, with multiple disciplines being involved, and without money and profit playing a role.

              Only through democracy can we chart our own course, but the problem is democracy isn't allowed to work.

              "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

              by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:24:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The poll you cite is from right winger Jayson Lusk (4+ / 0-)

              is criticized by an author who contributed an article to last book as being every bit as bad as Michelle Malkin.

              At every turn, Lusk chooses instead to tie his food policy arguments to seemingly unrelated flame wars.  He writes, "The progressives' plan for slow, natural and organic food production has been tried.  It's called Africa."  The food police ignore personal liberties, even though these are "many of the same people who scream, 'It's a woman's body,' any time the subject of abortion comes up."  Lusk calls the food police "fascists."  Lusk accuses the San Francisco board of supervisors of astounding hypocrisy for regulating toys for kids in restaurant meals, because the same city values other liberties highly: "'In the City by the Bay, if you want to roller skate naked down Castro Street wearing a phallic -symbol hat and snorting an eight-ball off a transgender hooker's chest while underage kids run behind you handing out free heroin needles, condoms and coupons ... that's your right as a free citizen of the United States.'"
              ... Jayson Lusk's Food Police is like a Michelle Malkin blog post, but it's 190 pages long and about food policy.
              http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/...
              A Democrat espousing a right wing writer? Egads!

              Not calling you a shill; however, if you are a Biotech scientist then your view is necessarily narrow. In a democracy, your view is not all that matters.

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:34:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

              I want all of those things you listed decided by voters.

              Welcome to America.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:07:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As Neil has said... (0+ / 0-)
                What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson
                I really would rather have science-based policies founded on science and not whims of Tea Partiers. But some people feel differently.

                What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:19:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some do. (3+ / 0-)

                  Some will also lose this debate like they have else where in the world.

                  I don't feel sympathy for some.

                  Some will also continue to be profitable corporations selling a legal properly-labeled product despite the hyperventilating wailing and gnashing of teeth some use to cloud this issue.

                  Some will get used to labels in a few years when this is no longer a debatable issue.

                  Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                  by Wisper on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:27:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The "mob" does not have a legislator put forward (4+ / 0-)

                  a bill written by the groups debating this and then show up to the hearing only to have the bill killed. Only then did we get the ballot initiative going and got 156,000+ signatures in only six weeks.

                  Mobs don't do court or ballot boxes. You are arguing against democracy.

                  We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                  by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:41:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Disgusting comparison. (3+ / 0-)

          „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

          by translatorpro on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:54:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The enforcement of this statute seems to be (3+ / 0-)

        liable to being charged with perjury for falsely swearing the product is non-GMO (which can be a very difficult proof to come by). In Oregon the penaty for perjury  can include fines and prison.
        And according to this law there would be several levels of persons or companies that would be required to swear to non-GMO purity. When it mentions an indpendent organization will be the gate keeper of this information people should be aware of the requirements that organization mandates. The not for profit group GMO Free Project (well known for their butterfly logo) requires that a product can be certified as Non-GMO only if each and every ingredient used in that product has been certified as GMO free and that is for every lot of finished product produced. For example if sugar is an ingredient then the plant it is produced from must be tested by a lab for tell tale signs the sugar beet or sugar cane was or was not GMO. That's because sugar is sugar is sugar. Not only that but also  any products used in the sugar production such as enzymes or even activated charcoal (used for removal of color) came from Non-GMO sources and had paper work certifying that the production of each was entirely Non-GMO. Note that once most packaged foods are ready for retail there is no way to tell if it contains GMO derived ingredients which is one of the reasons for this law in the first place.
        Now do this for every ingredient listed on the label and even for  the "Clean" labels most food producers strive for and saying that this process is easy, non-burdensome, and non-costly is seen as not true.

        Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

        by OHdog on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:47:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          billybush, OHdog

          For those folks who don't understand the physical reality of this, Kevin Folta has a great diagram to illustrate it:
          K. Folta from http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2014/04/gmo-labeling-ill-agree-when.html photo sugar_sugar_sugar_zps6917ca5f.jpg

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:05:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There ought to be a requirement... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mem from somerville

            that sugar from organic beets be labeled,

            The sugar contained in this product is chemically identical to sugar from GENETICALLY ENGINEERED beets.
          •  This is a great example of (5+ / 0-)

            your narrow view.

            All commercial USA Sugar Beets are GMO. Syngenta loves to grow them in the Willamette Valley because they need to winter over to produce seed. Oregon supplies 100% of the seed for this GMO crop. Unfortunately, these beets cross pollinate with conventional and organic beets, kale and some other brassicas, harming Oregon's rapidly expanding seed exportation industry.

            Jackson and Josephine County kicked them out of the Rogue Valley. They will stand and fight hard to keep them here. I should mention that our valley is one of only six such seed cradles in the world. In the event of the collapse of the agrochemical model, our valley could serve to reboot agriculture. There is already a global seed repository just outside the city limits.

            So, you see, GMO sugar has many more facets than your simple chemical graphics demonstrate. You do not know it all.

            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

            by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:42:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Facts are a narrow view. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mote Dai

              Yeah.

              What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

              by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:58:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When facts are taken from one narrow (5+ / 0-)

                discipline, then it is narrow. You refuse to accept that this is a democratic process and insist on calling us Tea Partiers or worse.

                I am a human geographer which is the only discipline which combines the hard and soft sciences. I know soil but I also know politics and economics. Part of this measure is to protect Oregon's agricultural exports. The GM contamination of our Oregon wheat was a wakeup call to us here. The Asians love our soft white winter wheat for noodles but do not want GMO. There are other ramifications of GMO cultivation that you are not considering at all.

                We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:46:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok, so you admit (0+ / 0-)

                  that this is about protecting an industry?

                  Mm hmm.

                  What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

                  by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:36:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. Civil rights. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZhenRen, RiveroftheWest

                    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                    by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:23:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  As owner of a small organic farm I want the right (0+ / 0-)

                    to grow and sell crops uncontaminated by GMOs. My customers want the right to know if the food they eat and serve to their families is uncontaminated by GMOs. Why is there such determined opposition to the simple matter of informing consumers and letting them make their own decisions about what they want to buy and eat?

                    Could it be MONEY? Could it be PROFITS?

                    •  I am against the bastardization by Monsanto of (0+ / 0-)

                      genetic engineering which does endanger the environment. But throwing the baby out with the bath water or capitulation to Big Chem are not the only ways. My comment (above) was to point out that the process of GMO labeling is not a simple process and criminalizing that process is so counter productive that it is exactly the sort of tactic that GMO cheerleaders have warned against.

                      Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

                      by OHdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:46:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Good morning, OHdog (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RiveroftheWest

                        There is no stopping the public pushback against the agrochemical industry tainting our food for twenty years without our knowledge. We are pursuing a legislative process through the ballot box, not ripping plants up in the field.

                        The labeling itself is simple. The ramifications for the food industry are not as they mix foods, so it will mean changes in the way that our food is produced. It will reverse the process of hiding GMOs in the food supply. This is the fault of those who chose to hide it there in the first place.

                        I understand that there is real regret in the GE scientific community that Monsanto is the face of their technology. However, instead of differentiating themselves from the most hated corporation in the world, they embrace their talking points and then are insulted when they are suspected of being shills.

                        If you reread this thread, you might notice that several Oregonians have weighed in to say they are voting yes on Measure 92. Some have commented upon the opposition which implies that citizens are stupid and part of a "mob" for voting. Many believe that the huge influx of outside money into Jackson and Josephine counties fueled the landslide for GMO cultivation bans.

                        We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                        by occupystephanie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:10:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Lableling foods is NOT NOT NOT simple (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          occupystephanie

                          particularly when you make the process entirely onerous.
                           The anti-GMO  movement is conflating different issues: 1) the concern that GMO crops resistant to certain pesticides  ensures that as the weeds become more tolerant or resistant that more and more pesticide will be used thus hurting people and non-target species; 2) Big agrochemical should not be able to control the majority of the seeds planted because monoculture leads to loss of diversity in the food plants and leads inevitably to disaster; 3) and the fear that eating GMO foods means you will be exposed to unnamed and unknown toxins that will do unknown but horrible things to your mind and body.
                          I'm sure there is a Venn diagram there somewhere. So you have three not really overlapping interests that may all vote for your position but will all be upset if only one or even if all three positions are codified into criminal law.

                          Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

                          by OHdog on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi OHdog (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest

                            This is why they have this:

                            Section 7. Severability

                            If any part or application of this Act is held invalid with respect to any particular raw or packaged food, situation, or entity, the remainder of this Act or its application to all other raw and packaged foods, situations, and entities shall not be affected.

                            This measure covers labeling only. Frankly, after it has been put in our food without our knowledge for 20 years, it is called for. If they had done this in the first place, it would not be onerous. Besides, I disagree that it will be that onerous. The writers have taken pains to cause no hardship to the state.

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:28:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The added costs at each level of the food supply (0+ / 0-)

                            chain will add to the final price of food. So how about the hardship to poor people. Also translates into less food being affordable on food stamps. Maybe healthier food but maybe not.

                            Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

                            by OHdog on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:24:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The current system shifts the costs to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RiveroftheWest

                            organic food producers. Ought not to be that way since they are smaller businesses. The labeling change cost itself will be small as any labeling change is (e.g. New and Improved, Now with real fruit). The only expense will be if the producer wants to be marked non-GMO and pursues it by getting non-GMO ingredients. Once he has his suppliers--similar to farms getting certified organic--his product will be non-GMO.

                            Our farmer's market accepts Food Stamps and there is a donation can at each stall for people to draw from.

                            Poor people right now are shopping at Walmart for "food"---in the chip, soda pop, cereal, and candy aisles.

                            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

                            by occupystephanie on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:37:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  If that's all it's about... (0+ / 0-)

        Then why specify GMOs?

        Why isn't this about labeling all food accurately, like the ridiculous number of different species that get labeled as "sea bass"?

  •  I'd Like To See All DNA Content Labeled (4+ / 0-)

    The average American eats well over 50 pounds of DNA a year.

    Your SpaghettiOs contain wheat DNA, Cow DNA, tomato DNA , onion DNA etc etc.  but it's not on the label.

    That organic apple also contains DNA. Maybe they should say "Contains 2% DNA."  

    How would  people react to such a label?  I'm sure they'd make wise choices.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:17:21 PM PDT

    •  "This product contains... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mem from somerville, FG, Mote Dai

      TCGACGTATTGACGTAGGCCAGT..."

    •  I would pay money (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG, serendipityisabitch

      to watch consumers attempt to use a genome browser to make their purchasing decisions.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:06:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Specious argument (6+ / 0-)

      Basically, you're saying they're too stupid to make choices without an elite class to think on their behalf. Your way is to withhold information, making them uninformed, controlling access to information, forcing them into the blind obedience of an idiot.

      "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

      by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:58:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Should Absolutely Write A Diary About That (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mote Dai

        ....with a detailed explanation of the motivations of the people you believe are opposing you.

        Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

        by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:29:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, motivations are simply (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          occupystephanie, indycam

          part of growing up absorbing the attitudes of a society that embraces Friedman and Adam Smith, and the myths of history we're taught in school.

          Capitalism. Science which serves it. Insane free market concepts of the right to bring a product to market. Authoritarianism, authoritarian personality. Invisible hand. Etc.

          "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

          by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:33:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "The Revolution Has No Need Of Scientists" (0+ / 0-)

            http://unintentional-irony.blogspot.com/...

            Lavoisier has been called the “father of modern chemistry” for good reason. He established the principle of conservation of mass in chemistry and physics, and performed a series of experiments which, combined with the work of Priestly and Cavendish, overthrew the theory of phlogiston as an explanation of combustion, and thereafter the swept away the classical theory of the elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Lavoisier’s replacement table of the elements ran to some 33 “irreducible substances” most of which were what we today recognize as elements, such as mercury, sulfur, and oxygen, which he renamed from “dephlogistonized air.” He also performed such flashy experiments as demonstrating that diamond is made from carbon by burning one in an atmosphere of pure oxygen.

            During the Reign of Terror in 1794, Antoine Lavoisier was arrested, along with 27 others, by the French Revolutionary Tribune for abusing the office of Ferme Générale by adulterating tobacco with water. They were guillotined the same day. When asked for his defense, Lavoisier is famously said to have remarked, “I am a scientist,” to which the tribunal replied, “The Revolution has no need of scientists.” Then “snick” went the head of Lavoisier. That’s the famous part of the story, anyway, usually given as a cautionary tale about the anti-science nature of revolutions.

            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

            by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:00:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, a revolution would need scientists (3+ / 0-)

              of all kinds, of all specialties. But it has no need of capitalist exploitation, and scientists willing to be used for that purpose, or those who would expect a special degree of authority over others.

              "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

              by ZhenRen on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:28:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'll vote in favor - (6+ / 0-)

    and it's largely because of Monsanto suing small farmers for having the nerve to let their crops be fertilized by the Monsanto plants in the neighboring field.

    The industry attitude on GMOs has thoroughly pissed me off, and I'm not altogether against them in their own right.

    Strength and dignity are her clothing, she rejoices at the days to come; She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue.

    by loggersbrat on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, loggersbrat (4+ / 0-)

      There is a very wide range in why people have signed this to appear on the ballot which is as it ought to be. Real persons have choice and rights. If we have to go to the courts and ballot box to assert them, we will.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 01:56:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mote Dai

      Too bad you'd vote based on fiction. The kind of lawsuit you describe hasn't happened.

      The only lawsuits have been on deliberate and willful misuse of seeds.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:08:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  From my diary The Onion Makes Monsanto Cry (4+ / 0-)
        And woe betide the conventional or organic farmers with fields adjoining those GMO-planting farmers whose crops are cross-contaminated by these patented products. Not only will their harvests be rejected by national and international markets and their organic farms threatened with decertification, they will be sued by these giant agrochemical companies for “stealing” their patented products. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto has successfully sued 144 family farmers while settling over 700 patent infringement/GMO contamination cases out of court.
        Here is the link for the last sentence.

        The first two paragraphs of that article:

        Dozens of family farmers, Plaintiffs in the landmark lawsuit Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto, traveled from across America to Washington, D.C. to take on Monsanto and demand the right to farm. They attended the January 10th Oral Argument in the Appeal of Dismissal which was aired before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A Citizen's Assembly in support of family farmers coincided in Lafayette Square with the beginning of the Oral Argument inside the court room.

        "Our farmers want nothing to do with Monsanto," declared Maine certified organic seed farmer, Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.   "We are not customers of Monsanto.  We don't want their seed.  We don't want their gene-spliced technology.  We don't want their trespass onto our farms.  We don't want their contamination of our crops. We don't want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence.  We want justice."

        Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/...

        This false assertion of yours makes me think that you have not even looked into this aspect of the issue and swallowed whole the Biotech line.

        We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

        by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:52:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you really not know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mote Dai

          the outcome of the OSGATA case? Despite their rhetoric, they couldn't produce a single farmer who had this happen. They are full of bluster to convince believers like you, but when it comes down to actual evidence....yah, not so much.

          Judge Dismisses Organic Farmers' Case Against Monsanto

          Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened."
          They did not win.

          Just like this legislation, anti-GMO folks get really terrible advice. Some directly from cranks. You might be able to bullshit some people on this Steph, but facts and data will bite you.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:43:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do not call me "Steph" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Emmy, RiveroftheWest

            It is patronizing and belittling.

            This is from Patent Docs and their article on the OSGATA case. Not quite as you represent.

            The court found that Monsanto indeed had a history of aggressive assertion of patent rights unlike your statement. Because these cases resolved with gag orders, they were never reported on which makes it easier for Monsanto-- and you--to deny them.

            Plaintiffs also noted that Monsanto has brought 144 infringement suits between 1997 and 2010, and settled ~700 more over that time. Showing that PubPat had learned the lessons of the Myriad case regarding standing, "[a]t least one plaintiff [Bryce Stephens] declared that the fear of suit by Monsanto is the sole reason he refrained from cultivating organic corn and soybeans, and that he would resume growing those crops if that threat were eliminated."
            Organic farmers would wait to see what GMO crops were planted before they planted to avoid contamination which kept them from growing corn and soybeans. Therefore, there was no contamination to show because the farmers farmed smartly. However...

            The court concurred with the plaintiffs that "inadvertent infringement would likely occur" and that there was "substantial risk that at least some of the appellants could be liable for infringement if they harvested and replanted or sold contaminated seed".

            The plaintiffs' asserted basis for their belief that they were at risk for infringement liability was "Monsanto's evident history of aggressive assertion of its transgenic seed patents against other growers and sellers"; however, simply a patentee's activities against other defendants are not always enough to confer jurisdiction, according to the panel opinion, relying on Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 706 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Micron Tech, Inc. v. MOSAID Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. _, 130 S.Ct 2705, 2717 (2010), and requires the court to look at the totality of the circumstances in each case.  Which, on these facts, required the court to assess whether Monsanto's "representations" regarding inadvertent infringers was sufficient to negate the company's "evident history of aggressive assertion" of it patents.
            Monsanto refused to sign a covenant not to sue, instead opting for an estoppel, which sounded to me like a pinky swear, that they would no longer sue for small amounts of patented genetic material. This promise was sufficient for the court to deny legal standing to the organic farmers along with the farmer's assertion that they avoided planting crops vulnerable to contamination. Not under scrutiny by the court was the farmer's losses due to not being able to plant certain crops.
            All plaintiffs alleged that they were "using their best efforts" not to produce crops comprising more than "trace amounts" of recombinant seed, and thus they did not allege activities that would put them at patent infringement risk -- a requirement for the plaintiffs to have standing under Supreme Court (Already) as well as Federal Circuit precedent (e.g., Benitec Austl., Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340, 1346–50 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
            This was a crushing disappointment to the farmers. I know one who was a plaintiff. My county's impending ballot measure grants immunity to our farmers.

            We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

            by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:20:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  thx 4 the/diary.. (3+ / 0-)

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:10:17 PM PDT

  •  Oregon and Colorado (5+ / 0-)

    Also, one of the New England states has a anti-GMO law already passed but it doesn't go into effect until at least 4 other states have one.  So there is an added incentive to keep building on Vermont.

    Every time GMO initiatives and debates come up the public shifts further and further in support of mandatory labeling.

    The industry can only lobby against this but so many times.

    Labels. Are. Coming.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:58:01 PM PDT

  •  May you have better luck than CA (4+ / 0-)

    We had the chance to vote on this in 2012, and the Ag business ran a campaign that buried reason and put a lily on it.

    Hope you had better luck.

    If we had a congress that actually cared about people, we'd have a national law and save us all the trouble of needing to run statewide campaigns.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

    •  When we no longer have representation, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OKath, JamieG from Md, RiveroftheWest

      we need to represent ourselves by coming up with the laws we need.

      I am so very glad to see all of this happening. People are becoming more civically engaged and that can only be good for the nation. We have been asleep for far too long.

      The legislators should take note soon. The Colorado Democratic Party endorsed a Colorado Constitutional amendment to enshrine community rights so we don't have to fight even after we have passed these laws.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If this diary is an indication, the harder (6+ / 0-)

    and more aggressively opponents of this law oppose it the more it will be supported by the voters.

    If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

    by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:41:09 PM PDT

  •  Thank you! (4+ / 0-)

    I don't understand the backlash to allowing consumers to know what is in their food.

    I want to know.  I work in a PDX grocery store. People want to know what is in their food.

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:34:51 PM PDT

  •  I will stick with science (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TFinSF, Susan G in MN, wildweasels

    And here is the statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on GM food labeling.

    You don't have to read the whole statement as this is the summary:

    There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

    I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

    by Mote Dai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:59:53 PM PDT

    •  There is a market demand for labeling. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      That is in economic and political arenas in which you apparently do not wander.

      We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

      by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:27:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is fearmongering (0+ / 0-)

        Plain and simple.

        And thanks for the insult.  Badge of honor.

        I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

        by Mote Dai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:12:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You took that as an insult, eh? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest

          There are other ramifications of GMO products that are complex including monoculture, soil depletion, religious dietary rules, and others that are ignored by the pro-GMO people. It is a narrow view to call it anti-Science when, on the other side, opponents could be called anti-democratic.

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:37:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  anti-democratic? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wildweasels

            Ah...I am sure the anti-vaxxers say the same thing...the religious right say the same thing about Creationism...

            Most anti-science folks try to make it about something else.  It is not a narrow view to call it anti-science when you are anti-science.  Shrug.

            Just because you can convince people of anti-science arguments using fear mongering and then get them to vote on it doesn't make it more right.  

            I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

            by Mote Dai on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:27:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RiveroftheWest

              This is anti-Monsanto taking over our food supply and giving us no choice. It is about them taking over our agriculture, making it a monoculture which will end in disaster. It is about our civil rights to control out own communities.

              You have a narrow view of science and science alone when it is not the whole world. It is not economics or politics or ethics.

              If this is about science for you then let us here what genetic engineering can do which is beneficial besides the vast majority of these crops which are engineered to be drenched with even more poisons. Why throw in with the most justly hated corporation in the world?

              We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

              by occupystephanie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:07:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  So... (0+ / 0-)

        ...why is the focus on GMO? Why doesn't this thing demand accuracy in labeling of seafood? Why doesn't it demand specific labeling of what variety of a fruit or vegetable is used in products instead of a generic term like "apple" or "tomato"?

        Don't blow smoke. This isn't about truth in food contents. This is about anti-GMO woo and always has been. Until you start demanding that everything be labeled precisely, what you chose to focus on says everything about the motives involved.

        •  People want to avoid eating GMO products (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest

          but they cannot because it is hidden. The reasons they want to avoid GMO is as diverse as it can be. It is a matter of personal choice.

          Turning it on its head, why does a corporation have the right to withhold information that consumers overwhelmingly want to have to make their own choices?

          We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

          by occupystephanie on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:33:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. People deserve the right to know what's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            occupystephanie

            in their food; why should they have to defend that right against gigantic corporations that insist on suppressing  information simply to increase their already-obscene profits?

          •  And that proves my point (0+ / 0-)

            Where the hell do you think most of the food in the supermarket comes from? Do you think all Monsanto's seeds are of the GMO variety? That individual fisherman can their tuna that arrives at your local store?

            Large corporations produce all kinds of food, not just GMOs. So again, if the concern is about truth in labeling, why just GMOs versus everything else?

            You can't answer that question, can you, without having to dip into anti-GMO woo.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site