Comments

101
DaveBrown35: "You work in the field of soil conservation but don't know that herbicide resistant crops make no-till possible?"

I did not say anything about no-till conservation. I do work in the field of soil conservation, and with farmers and landowners, and also with issues like fertilizer and pesticide over-application and runoff. What I do is irrelevant, though, shouldn't have even mentioned it; I am speaking as an individual on an issue that's important to me.

Anyway - I don't really see the connection between herbicide-resistant crops and no-till, since there are plenty of organic farms that employ beneficial soil practices. I'm curious to hear from you why herbicide-resistant crops are necessary for this.
102
GMO's are safe to eat and great for the environment, because Science! That's why it's critical to maintain the integrity of Science by ensuring that the dozens of Monsanto officials, lobbyists and consultants continue to find themselves in positions of authority in the government bodies that are supposedly there to regulate them. This list is including, but not limited to: Linda Fisher, a senior EPA official who later became Monsanto’s VP of Government and Public Affairs; Michael Taylor, Obama’s Deputy FDA Commissioner who also served as Monsanto’s VP for Public Policy; and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who served as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto in the 1970s.

Science is an important tool in the understanding of how the many different types of transgenic species will effect human health over a lengthy period of time ... just so long as that period of time does not exceed a safety trial period of 90 days, because that's all the biotech industry will allow for with their patent protected products here in the US.

What happens when a study is conducted outside the US for a period of over 90 days? Well look no further than the international research team led by Dr. Gilles-Eric SĂ©ralini of the University of Caen, who published a landmark study in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology where rats fed Monsanto's NK603 gmo corn were more likely to develop tumors and suffer severe liver and kidney damage over the course of two years than the control group, which was fed non-GM corn and plain drinking water.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic…

Now before the out-of-state, fake skeptics here do a collective shoulder roll onto their keyboards to furiously type the fact that the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology took the unprecedented decision to retract the study (unprecedented because the decision violates the journal’s own criteria for such retractions), it should be noted that the editor of the journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, himself admits that he “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data". Yet still, the paper was retracted because “the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive”. I wonder if the retraction had anything to do with the special new position of 'Associate Editor for biotechnology', created by the Journal shortly after the SĂ©ralini study, as well as a similar retracted study out of Brazil, was published? The new position was filled by Richard E. Goodman, and wouldn't you know it? He was a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. Science!
103
Spindles, the fact that you are resorting to using a redacted study says a lot about how shitty the science on the antigmo side of things is.

For anyone looking for more information please check out the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

This study was quite flawed, and the only reason it was redacted was because the scientist was unwilling to withdraw it.

Additionally the corn in question was exposed to high levels of Roundup, the current face of GMO technology is roundup ready corn, but round up itself is not a GMO and to say that roundup causes cancer is not the same things as GMO's cause cancer.

If you guys were lobbying for a herbicide or pesticide list I'd be on your side for sure.
104
Labeling will make it harder to ban GMOs because labeling will make it easy for consumers who want to avoid GMOs to do so. Hence, no need to ban.

The endorsement in the Portland Mercury article claims that the science is settled on GMO safety. It clearly is not for the long haul, if for no other reason than that the long haul has not happened yet. It takes 30 years to develop cancer from smoking. When 30 years has elapsed, what with the increased use of herbicides on GMO fields and other factors, we may have established that GMO crops are safe.

In the meantime, we are all part of the experimental group. Labeling will allow those who want to be part of the control group to do so. (For those unfamiliar with the way medical experiments are done, the control group is the group given the placebo when new drugs are being tested.) Without labeling, we are all part of a big science experiment without informed consent. By any lights, that is unethical.

Oregonians have a right to know what's in their foods, the foods they feed their kids. Vote YES on Measure 92.
105
"See, the science we possess on GMOs indicates they’re almost certainly safe to eat." - Portland Mercury

This is THE problem. Yet, it would be nice if you at least made a half-hearted attempt at validation.
Pathetic.
Don't know why I ever returned to reading PM. Disgusting.
106
A simple question: If genetically modifying a potato to be resistant to blight led to alleviating hunger, would you be for or against GMO?
107
I voted for the labeling, not because I thnk GMO is inherently bad, but because of the increased use of pesticides and herbicides.. Would be interesting to have a label saying "this food has been drenched with chemicals poisonous to plants, insects, and other living things." I could sure get behind that.
108
I'm sorry...we're questioning the honesty of the PROPONENTS of 92? What? No logic here.
109
Oh come on! How many people do you think there are left in this country who don't know what a GMO is?
110
Please cancel my subscription...I'd rather eat your paper than Monsanto's BS food substitutes. You're on the wrong side of history and the wimpy side of journalistic integrity. No irony that Ben Bradlee dies today, so did his ethics and legacy.
111
Where is your precious concern about dishonesty when it comes to the "No" campaign? They lie that food prices will rise and they lie that some GMOs will be exempted. They lie by representing themselves using Oregon farmers* on TV instead of Monsanto, Kraft, and Pepsi CEOs.

*If those farmers are really so concerned, why is there only $585 in individual contributions made to the "No" campaign out of over $11 million total from mega corporations? (http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2014/finance/measure-92/)
112
I voted Yes. If GMOs are so wonderful then they should be proud to label them. Especially when these same companies do it for 64 other countries, and their prices didn't go up. We deserve the same!
113
Funny how people who won't trust govt. agencies (FDA, USDA,) when they say that GMO's are safe, will trust the USDA Organic stamp without question when they clearly shouldn't. If you are serious about avoiding GMO's and non-organic foods you have two choices - grow your own or purchase only at a local market where you know the producer.
114
The fact that anti-GMO folks admitted to eating GMO foods doesn't make them safe-no one has any choice but to eat GMO. Stop trying to bend reasoning to make your point. You seem to have a problem with the people that you interviewed, and not so much the text of the ballot measure. It makes you seem like every other petty and self important editorial board out there. We might as well start reading the Oregonian.
115
what a load of horse shit
116
Personally, I believe GMOs engineered to NOT DIE from copious amount of Roundup and/or to produce their own insecticide are not safe to eat. They have NEVER been independently tested by the FDA. The FDA "assesses" the safety of GMOs from studies submitted from biotech companies.

However, 92 is about our RIGHT to know. Let the FREE MARKET decide if consumers want GMOs or not. Isn't that the American way? Michael Pollan stated that without labels we have a TWO tier class food system. One class for the organic folks and the other class for "EVERYONE." The EVERYONE else shops at conventional supermarkets that rarely stock non-GMO project verified or organic foods. I don't support mothers UNKNOWINGLY feeding their babies GMO soy infant formula. Do you? With labels they can educate themselves about the safety of GMOs...or not. That's their choice.

Dishonesty started 30 years ago when the biotech/chemical companies went out of their way to hide GMOs from the public. LABELING is about TRANSPARENCY, TRUTH AND TRUST.

Shame on Portland Mercury for NOT supporting OUR RIGHT to KNOW about GE foods. BTW, why do you think 64 other countries labeled GMOs?
117
that's bullshit!!! so do you also oppose labelling of ingredients? after all, people will consider that indication of sugar content of saturated fats as a warning of danger and shy away from buying those products!!! we all know that's bullshit. labelling promotes awareness, not fear. the labels would not say "GMOs might kill you", it would only say "contains GMOs", like it happens in Europe for example and people are not running away from the supermarkets because of it. people who care will read it and decide accordingly and those who don't care, will keep on buying the stuff they usually buy. stop trying to fool us all. some people are stupid, but not every body!
118
"But there are more straightforward ways of trying to change America’s problematic farming trends than a labeling measure that takes pains to protest it’s not actually out to do that. "

And pray tell what are those "more straightforward" ways, Merc?

Given that Monsanto and DuPont Chemical alone are spending $10M to defeat 92, it seems that the most effective way to give them the finger and tell them that we're not happy with what they're up to is to vote yes on 92.
119
I am shocked by the reasoning behind Portland Mercury’s opposition to measure 92.
Lets summarize: The Mercury is opposed to giving people the opportunity to avoid GMOs if they so choose. They candidly note that because they have no qualms with genetically engineered food, they do not want other people who do to be able to avoid purchasing them. So lets clarify: the Mercury is actually opposed to a piece of legislation that strengthens our civil liberties through giving us, the people, the right to know what is in the food we eat. Even the opposition, amidst all their wildly misleading claims, does not dare argue against strengthening our basic civil liberties.

The Mercury is somehow rubbed the wrong way by people being able to influence a potential shift in our agricultural system through their purchasing power. The people at the Mercury try to save face by noting that they too loathe the state of industrial farming-- but they don’t want people to have information to do anything to divest from it if they wish.

As as for their noted skepticism of potential ulterior activist motives from the yes side, they make no note of the ulterior motives from the no side-- comprised solely of multinational chemical companies and junk food corporations who profit from these expensive technologies that increase the use of toxic chemicals.

Finally, because the Mercury feels comfortable with the "safety" of GMOs as determined by the science provided by Monsanto and other biotech companies through their voluntary safety testings (that the FDA blindly accepts), the Mercury author fails to acknowledge the many other reasons that people choose to avoid GMOs.

For me and why I am voting yes: I believe everyone should have the ability to vote with their dollar. This includes supporting the food and farming systems I think are equitable and sustainable, and avoiding the food containing ingredients that come from farming practices that encourage increased pesticide use.

Personally, I am concerned by the loss of dignified and economically viable livelihoods in the world’s countryside as these multinational seed and chemical corporations promote monocropping and industrialization of agriculture, monopolization of the world’s seed supply, and increase their sales of chemicals to secure their profits.

I am concerned by the loss of agricultural biodiversity as 67% of the world’s seed supply is controlled by 10 multinational corporations which market only a handful of varieties of seeds.

I am also concerned by the well-known superweed problem, afflicting a large part of the country now. As a result of superweeds, new GE seeds are stacked with many (sometimes over 8) herbicide resistant traits to withstand increasingly toxic chemicals. As weeds become increasingly unfazed by the widely used Monsanto herbicide--roundup, the next toxic herbicide in the pipeline to cover North America’s agricultural fields is 2-4D--an ingredient that was used in Agent Orange. The USDA itself acknowledges that since approval of 2-4D resistant GE seeds and EPA deregulation of the 2-4D and glyphosate combined herbicide "enlist duo," nationwide 2-4D use will likely triple.

I have a number of concerns with the repercussions of the use of genetically engineered seeds and the socio-political, global implications of the farming systems and policies promoted by these companies. I want the right to know what contains GE ingredients so I can avoid genetically engineered food for the above stated reasons. There are a wide variety of reasons for each individual as to why they want to know which food products contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The Mercury interestingly notes in the commentary that cost is not a concern to them-- which the opposition is dumping misinformation about. Similarly, the Mercury does not note any problem with the way it was drafted--again, something the opposition is actively misinforming voters about. But the Mercury does candidly note that they do not want to allow people with concerns about genetically engineered technologies (that differ from their own) to have the ability to choose what they eat and what they feed their families. What an interesting argument that even the opposition chooses not to argue since, well, arguing against our civil liberties never seems to get much support from anyone does it?
120
Wrong.


It's a potshot across the bow of big agro...And they ARE scared. Judging by the amount of money they've sunk in trying to stop this, they are petrified.

Just as a perspective; Oregonians spend about $593 million per week, about $28.5 billion per year, on food.

Oregonians only make up about 1% of the country's population. Imagine if this new labeling system took off and another, more populous, state passed a similar law (A state like say California which has 8 times our population -Ouch would that hurt. )
121
Shit, I already posted but this one was nagging me too. I question the ethics, from the point of any publication, of taking a stance on any legislation while accepting money to commercialize for either side of the debate. When I look to the right of my screen I see a blurb from that commercial we have all grown to hate so much. The one with the "family farmer", that is just so insulting to our intelligence, as though we don't know that "family farmer" isn't some kind of code that describes a franchiser/franchisee relationship with big agro that is rapidly choking real family farmer either out of business or into nominally forced indenture.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.