As a serious science geek, a strong fluoridation supporter, and someone who willingly eats (and will continue to eat) GMOs, I'm voting YES on 92 for the only reason I even saw worth debating during the fluoride debacle: ethics.
You tell me I don't need to know what's in my food? Fuck you. Simple as that.
I would not begrudge the fluoride loons - who ARE on the wrong side of science, something which simply has not been as solidly proven with GMOs, which I'm more concerned about hurting the food web than I am about hurting me - a label on beverages which were made with fluoridated water. They can avoid the label and I can ignore (or select for) it.
As for the slippery slope argument, other than allergens (which are often still a 1 in 100 issue, if that), there *aren't* a lot of other things people give a shit about like GMOs, so no, you are not going to have all available packaging surfaces taken up with special interest labels in 10 years when, er, if 92 passes - give me a break.
David Anderson - the new poster child of why we need a science tax in this city.
No on 92, are you mad , what is Monsanto paying you guys, please refrain from giving us advice on what u don't understand. You did the same on fluoride, your rag is dangerous and you don't deserve to be a part of what keeps Portland weird anymore. Shame on you, we need change in the food industry, so we can keep our children safe. Vote yes on 92.
"Safe" is used pretty loosely in terms of GMO's. Yes they're safe as in they won't immediately kill you, but let's not forget the long term effects these foods have had on us. Look in the poorest sections of any city and you're certain to see sick, obese people in wheel chairs on almost every block.
We have the unhealthiest diet and most exorbitant healthcare costs of any Western nation. All a direct result of the cheap and crappy food that's been forced on us. Especially those at the lower end of society who either can't afford healthier food or are too uninformed to make better choices. These people then become sick, but can't pay for care so the rest of us end of supplementing that cost.
We need people to make better choices, which in turn will force food producers to provide us with better food and therefore reduce the number of people entering hospitals without the money to pay for their care.
This is all long-term stuff, highly dependent on the choices of individuals, but I'm all for labeling GMO's and putting some fear into people so they at least think about making better choices.
For the Mercury to suggest that there are better ways to change America's problematic farming trends then I sure would like to hear them. And if Measure 92 aims to do just that then why the fuck not vote YES?
I thought of an alternate to "Top Two", that I call a "Shared Primary" (someone probably has already thought of this, but I haven't found anything on it). In this all candidates for a position are listed together, grouped by political party with a section for "Unaffiliated" (since Independent is actually a party) candidates. A registered voter, regardless of party, gets one vote from all the candidates. With this, each party still end with one candidate to put forward in the general (no mono-party general elections like we are seeing with Top Two), and smaller party or unaffiliated candidates get better visibility in the primary to help guide their course toward the General. Yes, this would probably mean more choice in the general with possible "spoilers" but I feel that is better than no choice. Thoughts?
Your Dumbassed "NO" recommendation on 92, Wow....really surprised at this. Considering I usually think you guys are slightly smarter than my angry runt Bloodhound that bites me in the ass when I sit down next to him while he's asleep on my couch.....No...for measure 92 because you think it's "safe" to eat this shit???? National Institute of Health, and I fucking quote, "The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters."...
Sufficient studies haven't been done on this CRAP (meaning GMO-fucking-foods) to warrant it to be labeled as fucking "safe".
GM Education states: Peer-reviewed studies have found harmful effects on the health of laboratory and livestock animals fed GMOs. Effects include toxic and allergenic effects and altered nutritional value.
They say this stuff for shock value...
So for you guys I say eat Allllllllllllllllllllllllllll that crap you want...
For the rest of us that don't buy into that BS...VOTE FUCKING YES.
OK that was kind of mean but I thought it was funny at the time. I was trying to make light of how worked up people get about other peoples' opinions.
If Steve pocketed a couple G's I at least hope he shared some of his blow with the hookers and didn't horde it all to himself though.
Very disappointed to know that the Mercury has accepted money to encourage people to vote against their own best interest. The GMO labeling measure isn't perfect. This is the same on many laws. We have to start somewhere and work on it to make the law more perfect.
The Mercury says that people already have the right to choose by buying Organic and Non-GMO products. Yes, if you can afford it. But if GMOs continue to be planted, there will soon be no Organic options, even for the more fortunate of us. Have you heard of cross pollination contamination? GMO crops far outnumber the organic crops. It's only a matter of time before that organic farm gets a pollen drift from a GMO crop. And that's it, another one bites the dust!
If we label GMOs it will bring about consumer awareness. This is one reason the big food corporations are fighting it. If the people know what in it many will stop buying it.
With all of the money spent to defeat this measure by saying it will cost so much, the opponents could have already paid for the labeling process.
I hope that the Oregon people are smarter than Washington and California. I know that at least a couple of counties are.
Labels are changed all the time on products and you never hear anything about it. Now all the sudden it's going to cost so much to label GMOs? Is it costing us so much to have a label for gluten free? What about for No Transfat? NO! These are scare tactics, plain and simple.
BOO ON YOU MERCURY!
Oregon Ballot Measures: 86- Yes, 87- Yes, 88- No, 89- No, 90- No, 91- Yes, 92- NO! 26-159 Yes, 26-160 Yes
The only people who agree with you on measure 92 are the big out-of-state corporations pouring money into your sorry ass rag and the paid shills who work for them. Stop accepting the payola or find an honest job.
I find it hilarious that anybody thinks the Mercury exists as anything other than a weekly publication of dick and fart jokes conveniently bundled with local entertainment listings.
The only reason to ever pick up a Willamette Weak is to read Dr. Know, look at the hilariously racist fashion picture collage thing, skim the local news blurbs and then recycle or put back on the stack. Takes about 5 minutes.
The Mercury wants you to smoke GMO grass washed in fluoridated water. Fuck them.
Professor Frankieb has spoken.
Reading a lot of these comments reminds me why we couldn't help out poor kids teeth with flouridation.
I still say this town needs a science tax instead of an arts tax.
Yes on Measure 90.
Will it weaken parties? Yes. Is that bad? Meh.
Will I, as an unaffiliated voter, appreciate being able to vote for the more moderate candidate and throw a monkey wrench into the system where most districts have been gerrymandered by the two party system into little fiefdoms that ensure the party bosses get to dictate who we get to elect? Yes. Yes, I will.
In 1982 Novartis (now Syngenta) gave $25 million to UC Berkeley's Plant and Microbial Biology Department, launching industry funding takeover of GMO research and self-interested control of the “scientific” story ever since. GMO scientists now work simultaneously for their universities and the industry, which would obviously not fund studies that could threaten their entire business model. Industry-funded research has predictably avoided lifetime studies of animals and direct studies of human subjects, without which long-term safety cannot be assessed.
Monsanto gained FDA approval of its “Roundup-ready” corn with a 90-day rat study - equivalent to a human age of about 10, hardly long enough to detect long-term toxicity or carcinogenicity which has been discovered in a handful of independent studies. Alarmed by industry misrepresentations of scientific findings, 297 scientists of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility state that GMO safety remains unproven. That's good enough for me, and I want to know where the glyphosate and 2,4D poison-saturated items reside on the market shelf.
I won't even start on topsoil destruction, deforestation, carbon-intensive technology and food distribution, patenting of seeds, contracts prohibiting seed saving that require increasing chemicals sold by the seed companies, pollen drift and lawsuits against farmers for patent infringement, ecosystem destruction, claims of solving world hunger that have proven completely false, and the sinister agenda voiced decades ago by Henry Kissinger: when you control the oil, you control countries; when you control the food, you control the people.
Dear Mercury Mummy and Daddy,
Thank you for trying to save our widdle minds from too much information about GMOs in food. You said that bad Measure 92 was made by people who don't like GMOs. We couldn't have figured that out. It's bad to have complete information about food. Right? Me go shopping now.
No on 92? Wow. Looks like your advertisers have bought and paid for you. Those 64 Countries around the world who require GMO labeling must be paranoid freaks, right. Looks like I'll be picking up all the Mercury rags I see … I'll never read one again, but they make great kindling for the wood stove.
You are for Legalizing Marijuana but against GMO Labeling??????.....hope you get to try a nice GMO spleefer! By the way, I hope you got paid well for that no on 92 ad on your site :(....Stop the Stupidity....Yes on 92
(because of fluoridation’s proven negative effect on the developing infant brain)
Oh, shut up, asshole. As if every baby from a major city is developmentally disabled.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |