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.
"(GMOs are)..almost certainly safe." Almost? Could be, except for the several studies done around the world that have determined GMOs to cause a variety of health problems in laboratory animal tests. Except for the fact that the toxic weed killer in Round-up, that is genetically implanted in GMO seeds, has been discovered in the fetus's blood of pregnant women. Except for the fact that Russia just banned all GMO products for ten years, until it's safe ingestion can be determined through further studies over the long term. You could say that it might be safe, or it might NOT! Why shouldn't people like me have the right to know and be able to chose if I am going to eat a food with Round-up implanted in it? Do the profits of the Big Ag. and the Chemical giants have more importance than the people's right to know what they're feeding their children? The well trusted and consumer advocate, Consumer Reports, has determined that Measure 92 will NOT raise the cost of our groceries. It has not done so in the 64 other countries that have implemented GMO labeling laws. And 6 other states have already passed laws requiring the phasing in of GMO labeling just like measure 92 will. Oregon will not be the only State requiring the labeling of GMOs, and many others have similar laws under consideration. This is about individual rights! This law is not going to, or trying to, eliminate anything, just inform. However, if eventually it turned out that enough consumers did chose to not ingest this engineered food, so much so to the degree that they did end up going out of business, wouldn't that just be the eventual consequence of supply and demand, and what is usually referred to as the "Will of the people"? So it looks to me like the Mercury is more interested in supporting Big Chemical companies like Monsanto and the giant Grocery Manufactures Association, over the rights of Oregonian citizens. That is too bad. I am believing Consumer Reports over Monsanto and voting yes on 92.
Yes on 92! Label GMO's! I am a farmer and I work with other farmers across our nation. Many of my colleagues have been put out of business or sued by monsanto. These chemical companies think they can own our seeds, seeds that we have been planting for generations. It just wrong! It seems you city folk have become disconnected with the land and where your food comes from. It's a sad day for the people of the United States when we can't even grow real food and you don't know what's in your food. The reality is that farmers are suffering from GMO chemical company bullying. I hope the people in our great state of Oregon make the right choice and label our foods! Thanks Nate (Conventional Oregon Farmer).
“The Mercury” never fails to disappoint me. Of course they came out strongly in favor of water fluoridation for the city of Portland, and humiliated anyone who thought science dictated literally a ton of evidence supporting its harmful effects. Furthermore, it ignored our own Oregon legislature which made it mandatory to present a clear warning on water bills in fluoridated districts to warn of using tap water for infant formula (because of fluoridation’s proven negative effect on the developing infant brain).
Now, they come along and state, The science we have shows that there is NO negative effects from ingesting GMO food. Well, uh, what science is that? Obviously, it is only the science handpicked and spoon-fed to them by the powerful Monsanto lobbyists who are spending tens of millions to defeat this measure in Oregon, just like they did in California and Washington.
This is it folks. The big sweep is there for the taking. The entire west coast and its multibillion dollar farming business is on the line. The Mercury goes on to say that yes on 92 will virtually bring GMO farming to a halt, and gosh golly, we need GMO farming. They never say why. Of course, nothing can be further removed from the truth. Corn, Canola (WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A gmo FOOD FROM THE GET GO) AND SOY WILL STILL BE GROWN USING gmo SEED FOR LIVESTOCK FEED, OILS, SUGAR, FUEL AND ON AND ON, FILLING INDUSTRIAL, LIVESTOCK and human needs.
They write their endorsement in this aw shucks, butter wouldn't melt in our mouths style, because THEY are the purveyors of the simple truth. It’s a tone for idiots who need not look or think any deeper than what The Mercury has to say as gospel. How convenient.
Truth is, it is highly likely they were paid quite handsomely to endorse the no side, and were told what arguments to push...in their own inimitable style of Caveman Chic, of course. It is a fact that Healthy Kids, or whatever the euphemistic title was for the poison-our-water campaign gave heavily to the Mercury, Willamette Week, The Oregonian, et. al.
They all came down in favor of water fluoridation, regurgitating (pun intended) the talking points of the lobbyists for the chem-industrial giants who stand to profit from dumping aluminum fluoride, or flourosilic acid into our water supply.
Well, it's time to tell them they cannot buy our vote. We do not believe their lies or their damn lies. We want to know what we eat! as is our right. We believe the mountain of science that has shown the ingestion of gmo foods leads to cancer! We do not believe the lies about skyrocketing costs, when the best studies show the cost to consumers will be minimal, at best. And the biggest cost would simply be that manufacturers would have to use non GMO ingredients, because no one would want to buy their GMO products anymore . Or, fearing the truth be told, they will simply abandon their GMO products in this proud state all together. This is mostly for snack, frozen, and prepared types of foods.
If you don't eat a lot of commercial chips and frozen pizza, then your food bill is only going to rise a few dollars per year, as the extra pennies are added on for labeling. Does your favorite cereal, milk, cheese, canola oil, chips, ice cream, and on and on, contain GMO ingredients?
Don’t you want to know? Isn’t it your right to know what is in your food? Do you really want “The Mercury” to tell you want is good for you? Do you really want the behemoth, Monsanto, to tell you what is good for you, and to trust they would never, ever give you bad advice about the safety of foods raised from their seed ? (built to withstand an onslaught of carcinogenic pesticides that boggles the mind).
Are you really that trusting of a person?
I'm generally disappointed by our local newspapers inability to see the real issue of the GMO labeling measure.
Given that the general citizens voice in big, national and global issues is usually unheard, we as people must remember that we vote with our dollars on the daily. GMO corporations, like it or not, are some of the most powerful international political influencers on the planet. There are entire countries in the world whose governments are primarily influenced by GMO corporations. The majority of our food is produced by a few conglomerates who have hundreds of different names and brands.
Labeling GMOs allows us to know who we are voting for when we go to the grocery store. Wether or not GMOs are good for us is not the whole issue. Yes, maybe that isn't the stated purpose of the bill at hand, but we only get to vote on things on an infrequent basis.
Don't be scared of big changes. This seems like a modest difference.
And when it is said that the law will hurt small farmers I don't believe it. Most "farmers" these days are huge industrialized operations.
Did you know that the majority of recipients of federal farm subsidies are located in Manhattan? Last time I checked, there wasn't a ton of farms in Manhattan.
Oh, my sweet Euphonius: I'll have you know we posted that one *before* they did. And then we found yesterday that they agreed with us.
I'd like to apologize to the mercury; I appreciate your open platform allowing people to have a voice, and in turn you should have yours. I was heated in my statements towards you. I do however feel it is somewhat of a curve ball the way this article is published right before voting occurs.
Re 92: "But this campaign . . . is quite clearly a bid to get food companies to abandon GMOs, a backdoor attempt at altering our agricultural landscape."
The reason you make this statement is that you realize when people see what they are eating, they will make decisions on that information. Which means they won't buy certain foods that they don't want to eat. Please explain to me why this is bad?
No on 92??
Tell the truth: You guys just pick one of Willamette Week's endorsements and say the opposite. Because you guys are independent thinkers and all.
"See, the science we possess on GMOs indicates they're almost certainly safe to eat." That seems like a pretty big statement to just slip in there. The scientific community, you know, the experts, are divided but the Mercury apparently has it all figured out. PBS polled a group of scientists who know way more than me, you or the Mercury. Check it out:
Ohh so sorry was busy studying quantum mechanics and electrodynamics to worry about grammar. don't talk to me about science. In fact lets talk about standards of reporting in the media- don't REAL papers try to maintain their legitimacy by remaining unbiased and though they may have an agenda they at least cite other sources rather than just saying "hey this is our opinion and we're the ones who write a half serious local paper so our opinion should have credit".
so as for "scientific facts" let me tell you what i "know" about science; we only know what we observe. something becomes a law when we cannot disprove it but can observe it without fail. theories (not laws) shift year to year and even in physics from decade to decade. when your talking biology its probably more frequent, and when we're talking health they shift from week to week. Don't take my word for it let me drop a quote I just read studying for my pol sci course;
"In fact, half or more of cancer experts believed that the media distorted the dangers of particular carcinogens.....It got worse ratings on naturally occurring chemicals in food and food additives, nuclear plants, pollution, pesticides, household chemicals, and dietary choices"- Mass Media and American Politics, Graber and Dunaway, pg 1631
The entire chapter was on how corporations promote scientific studies but scientists themselves are rarely willing to be quoted because they know there is much they don't know.
nobody needs your social services go now.
But hey, who am I to tell a city of Kirk Camerons to consider the scientific evidence? Keep it weird, y'all!
"drinking that flouride [sic, but sic to your whole post] shit PROBABLY is way worse"
"your [sic, see what I mean?] so scared of farmers"
When PCC lets out, can you elaborate?
"we don't need you here." Yes you do. I have a job and pay property taxes. Adult men who can't reason or spell need me badly, I help pay for their social services.
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |