GMO Labeling in Hawai'i

[Menehune Man]

I believe GMOs should be labeled so.
Others do not.
What I have written or researched and shared has not changed their view.
Nothing they have shared has changed mine.

[Menehune Man]

Genetically modified food definition: Meat and edible plants modified through genetic engineering.

Although humans have genetically modified animal and plants since the beginning of civilization, they did it through selective breeding possible only within the same species through natural reproduction over decades or centuries. Modern techniques, however, can transfer genetic material from one organism to another to instantly create utterly different variants. Since alien genes are not welcomed by the existing genes, suppressive techniques must be used to force the animal or plant to accept them. Such artificially mutated foods are a source of unresolved controversy over the uncertainty of their long-term effects on humans and food chains.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz2ECLgS9C0

They are actually in some circumstances inserting animal DNA into food plants, not only different plant to plant.

[GregLee]

They are actually in some circumstances inserting animal DNA into food plants, not only different plant to plant.

Eew!!!!!!!

[Walkoff Balk]

When it's get to a Little Shop of Horrors situation. Then, we've gone too far.

[salmoned]

Genetically modified food definition: Meat and edible plants modified through genetic engineering.

Although humans have genetically modified animal and plants since the beginning of civilization, they did it through selective breeding possible only within the same species through natural reproduction over decades or centuries. Modern techniques, however, can transfer genetic material from one organism to another to instantly create utterly different variants. Since alien genes are not welcomed by the existing genes, suppressive techniques must be used to force the animal or plant to accept them. Such artificially mutated foods are a source of unresolved controversy over the uncertainty of their long-term effects on humans and food chains.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz2ECLgS9C0

They are actually in some circumstances inserting animal DNA into food plants, not only different plant to plant.

Genetic engineering is genetic engineering - the results of new techniques produce results that manifest a subset of 'natural' genetic engineering. Even now, natural genetic engineering outpaces artificial genetic engineering by many orders of magnitude - that's what's created the biodiversity we have today. That's life. We're a part of it - not separate from it - there's nothing to worry about here. God approves of this message.

May we someday create organisms that are more successful within their environments than 'wild' organisms? I sure hope so, it will demonstrate our comprehension of the science. Will we create a world-devouring Kudzu? No, we're it!

[Leo Lakio]

Will humans rule the Earth forevermore?

Do we at present? Only if "rule" = "does the most harm."

[salmoned]

Oops, double post. Yeah, I usually edit posts extensively because if I work on one too long without posting, the system devours it.
I hope you enjoy how I've changed that quoted line.

[Ron Whitfield]

Here's a wonderful tidbit I just read in the UH paper Ka Leo, Molokai Ranch, whom owns much of that island, "leases land to Monsanto for pennies and provides them with water at highly reduced rates."

[GregLee]

Will humans rule the Earth forevermore?

Do we at present? Only if "rule" = "does the most harm."

I think our descendents will indeed rule the Earth forever more. But there might be some question whether they are humans (if they carry, for example, asparagus genes).

[salmoned]

Just showing your lack of foresight, forevermore doesn't include the Earth.

[Moto]

Lot of information out there. This one in particular caught my eye. This article reports that we are getting results that are exactly opposite than what everyone believed would happen by going with GMO.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study...icides-2012-10

Pesticide use is increasing and herbicide use is significantly up after dropping off for a number of years.

So it appears that the GMO crops will still be grown utilizng quantities of herbicide and pesticides as nature is evolving to adapt.

I too am still learning the facts about GMO and am not on the bandwagon to ban it. However, I am strongly in favor of labeling such product so I can avoid it's use until I learn more about it's effects, especially, long term effects. I do not mind paying more for non GMO foods (as I choose to pay more for organic foods). I would just like to have that choice, which I do not have at this time.

[GregLee]

This article reports that we are getting results that are exactly opposite than what everyone believed would happen by going with GMO.

New crop varieties were developed to increase tolerance to herbicide, and now we find that more herbicide is being used. Why is that surprising? Being able to use more herbicide was the point of developing the new crops in the first place.

The article says that insecticide use dropped 28 percent from 1996 (when Roundup Ready strains were introduced) to 2011. Isn't that a good thing?

[Moto]

True the article states that pesticide use has dropped from 1996 to 2011, however, pesticide use is once again on the rise because of insects showing resistance to the genetically modified crops, leading us to believe that the pesticide trend is somewhat following the herbicide trend.

Would be interesting to know if the resistant stain of weeds that the article talk about are the same weeds that the GMO product initially killed (which leads me to believe that only the most resistant weeds survived and now they've become predominately resistant, similar to the penicillin effect) or if the elimination of one type of weed cleared the way for others to thrive (of course more resistant to the GMO product, but probably could not compete with the once predominant weed)

[Menehune Man]

Just two youtube videos concerning GMO labeling in Hawaii.

Testimony and... at Honolulu City Council meeting 11/27/12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8SoHykRYo

The "just label it movement" in Hawaii has been led by the magnificent seven of which names are Walter Ritte, Dr. Melissa Yee, Dr. Hector Valenzuela, Hesh Goldstein, Mary Oyama, Jeri Di Pietro, and Courtney Bruch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfCpIDZ0Kh4

[Moto]

For those of you who want to view a debate on this subject:

Watch a live debate on the controversial development of genetically modified crops in Hawaii: “Biotech in Hawaii,” on PBS Hawaii - Channel 10, at 8pm. Or, watch via online LIVE streaming

Host Dan Boylan will moderate a discussion about the controversial development of genetically modified crops in Hawaii. Guests from the bio-tech industry and those opposed to GMO practices will offer their views. They will also discuss the ongoing labeling debate and realted public health and environmental and land issues.
Panelists will include:
• Mark Fergusson, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer at Down to Earth
• Richard Manshardt, Horticulturist at UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
• Mark Phillipson, President of Hawaii Crop Improvement Association;
• Hector Valenzuela, Vegetable Crops Extension Specialist at UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.
You will be able to to join the live discussion or participate via Twitter using the #PBSinsights hash tag.
Tune in Tonight!
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, at 8PM
E Malama I Ka ‘Aina, E Ola Pono
Cherish the Land, Live in Health and Harmony

[GregLee]

Thanks for the info. According to my schedule, it's on satellite TV on channel 11, 8-9pm, as "Insights on PBS Hawaii".

[Menehune Man]

Thanks Moto! Will catch the show...

[liberty]

There's an Insights livestream on PBSHawaii.org if you can't catch it on TV. The livestream usually goes up around 7:30 before the show. Expecting it to be a lively discussion...

[Menehune Man]

Just watched it.
The GMO foods guys had good arguments that had true merit.
And so did the anti or at least label guys too.

If you wish to watch PBS Hawaii shows online then...
http://www.livestream.com/pbshawaii/...tent=pbshawaii

[Walkoff Balk]

Panelists will include:
• Mark Fergusson, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer at Down to Earth

Which side will he be on?

[Moto]

Interesting discussion. Lot of good information was discussed, but I suspect that if you are for GMO labeling going into the debate, you will still be for labeling and if you are against GMO labeling, you will still probably be against it. I do not believe there was any earth shattering information provided.

Since I am for labeling of GMO products (I am not against GMO, until further observations can be made, but I would like to know what is and isn't GMO), one thing that I thought was a pretty weak way to try to convince the panel that GMO was safe was when Mark Phillipson stated that since GMO was introduced, cases of stomach cancer has dropped significantly. I would have fired back a challenge that if that logic is what he would like to use, then what about the dramatic upswing of chrohn's disease and other ailments?

It was pointed out that because there is no GMO labeling, there is essentially no real studies on how GMO is affecting our lives. In other words, there can be no long term studies because we won't know who is consuming GMO products and who isn't. Does that sound like a logical decision?

Again, I am for labeling of GMO, but am open to any information that could change my position.

[GregLee]

It was pointed out that because there is no GMO labeling, there is essentially no real studies on how GMO is affecting our lives. In other words, there can be no long term studies because we won't know who is consuming GMO products and who isn't.

I heard that stated several times, but I didn't understand it. From the fact that foods are not labeled, it doesn't follow that the GMO status can't be determined. For instance, the UH prof when asked rattled off the names of papaya varieties that are GMO ("rainbow", ...) and those that are not ("sunrise", ...).

[Moto]

I heard that stated several times, but I didn't understand it. From the fact that foods are not labeled, it doesn't follow that the GMO status can't be determined. For instance, the UH prof when asked rattled off the names of papaya varieties that are GMO ("rainbow", ...) and those that are not ("sunrise", ...).

That works well for papayas. Now take the two largest GMO crops corn and soybeans. Unfortunatly, you cannot track those items as you can Papayas. To make matters worse, corn and soybeans are ingredients used by many other products. Those are examples of GMO products that you could easily ingest without knowing that you are consuming GMO products. Even if you eat staight corn on the cob or soy beans, there are no identifyable varieties as in Papayas that you could differentiate GMO or not.

[GregLee]

Those are examples of GMO products that you could easily ingest without knowing that you are consuming GMO products.

I still don't follow the reasoning. Why should studying the health effects depend on whether people know they're eating GMO products? We're not worried about psychological harm. It might be easier to get unbiased evidence if people don't know.

[salmoned]

Along the line of GMO labeling, why shouldn't every genetic variation be labeled in our food products? There's nothing special about GMO over natural variation. Sure, a GMO may have harmful characteristics, but it's just as likely that a natural variant has similar harmful characteristics. In fact, it's more likely that a GMO may have harmful characteristics removed than inserted, since modifications are intentional and safety tested. GMOs are patented, which means liability can be assigned in case of damages - that's a safety-net bigger than any non-GMO product carries.

My position is for voluntary labeling of non-GMO products - not mandatory labeling of GMO products. The cost will go up a bit for non-GMO labeled products (costs are already presumed higher or GMOs wouldn't be used in the first place), but it will be a cost that is voluntarily absorbed (or not) by the consumer. Here's the BIG question - Why won't activists be satisfied with the same voluntary system used for 'organic' products? Organic products usually carry a premium that includes the extra cost of labeling, why shouldn't non-GMO carry that extra expense as well? Organic production came first, just as non-GMO production came first, so let the cachet adhere to the 'original' products, not the more recent and economical products.

[Next thing they'll want is a statement of fossil fuel consumption to produce and transport each product to market - ugh!
'This banana was hand-grown with natural soil supplements produced on site, then bicycled to market - that'll be $12, thank you!']