The Seattle Times thinks GMO's is about making life harder for agribusiness? They think that we've all been eating GMO food for years and nothing bad has happened? They think we should vote no? Hellloooo? What world are YOU living in - Mr (Probably taking 6 pharma drugs, cooking heart disease and cancer and your children are on ADHD drugs with exploding diabesity) editorial writer...you think we're all ok?? Take the poll, thank GOD 82% of these pollers disagree with you. Vote YES on I-522 for the health of ourselves and future generations, how about that? Take a stand for what is right..not what is good for big business.

The FDA has never performed or required a single independent safety study of GE food. That is anti-science, labeling is not.

The so called "safety studies" that the biotech industry are required to perform only need to demonstrate that GE foods have close to the same amount of calories fat, protein, etc. That is not a safety study.

Every anti labeler always says the WHA and NAS say it's safe so we should eat it, but what they actually say is based on current data there is not enough info to suggest it is unsafe. WAY different. And they go on to say we need independent safety studies before these products are released, and we have not come anywhere close to that.

There is nothing in the legislation that discourages or limits GE research or production. Nothing.

From: The Genetic Literacy Project*

"With 2000+ global studies confirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subject in science"

"In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed."

"The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism."

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/20…

*The Genetic Literacy Project is a non-profit organization funded by grants from non-partisan foundations. We also accept donations from individuals. We have no ties to and accept zero dollars from any industry or corporation. The GLP is affiliated with the non-profit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) based at George Mason University in Virginia, which supplies administrative support for the GLP, and with the Center for Health & Risk Communication at GMU.

Note: this isn't a condemnation nor an endorsement of food labeling. Just actual scientific data.

I know Angelia Jolie amputated her breasts because of a small marker in her DNA. I see food allergies and fertility problem increasing. I don't think scientists can tell you what collateral damage will happen with changed DNA in 100 years from now. All I know is there is some s'plaining to do from our government that has allowed large corporations to buy elections.

I think it's a stupid initiative without any scientific backing, and is just a heavy-handed way of scaring the public into avoiding GMO-containing food. Nevertheless, I feel I have to vote for it simply because of the combined evil of all of the no-campaign funders.

@106 more herbicides *relative to GMO*. Not relative to non-GMO conventional agriculture. This is the same mistake you made earlier. You ask, "What are the benefits of [conventional agriculture]" which is a fine question to ask, but it makes the same mistake of confusing non-GMO with sustainable. If there were no GMO crops, we'd still have herbicide drenched monocultures dependent on fossil fuels. 522 is going to pass, and at the very least you should understand that it will do nothing to curb harmful agricultural practices.

Since when is giving information to consumers anti science? Science is pro information.

@112 - "Conclusions: Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future"
Benbrook, Environmental Sciences Europe, 2012, 24:24
http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/219…

Precisely, GMO or not, we still have pesticide drenched monocultures dependent on fossil fuels, which points to the total uselessness of GMO tech to address the real problems.

Also, GMO monocultures will destroy subsistence farming through corporate consolidation of agri-business thanks to intellectual property patents. It's completely unacceptable from so many points of view that I don't understand where you are coming from.

I keep seeing talk about moncultures, herbicide abuse and giant agribusinesses. None of this has anything at all to do with GMO's. Those things exist, but the exist across the entire industry.. It is like attacking the wearing of pants by women because of the poor wages, child labor and abusive business practices associated with the textile industry. Those are all terrible things, but they are not terrible because women wear pants. They are terrible regardless of whether or not women wear pants.

GMO's can and will be used by giant corporations with poor ethics. Conventional agriculture can and will be used by giant corporations with poor ethics. The question is whether GMO's are in any way worse, more dangerous, or more problematic than conventional agriculture. The answer is no.

@115 - We can wax lyrical about the potential of GMO tech all day long if you want but the reality of GMOs is what they are used for today and what they'll probably mostly be used for in the future. That some of the negative traits of GMOs are found in conventional agriculture shows that GMO tech isn't providing solutions for the problems we imperatively face, and that on the contrary it is making them worse. So it is not the developmental path that we should pick for agriculture considering there are other, more sustainable methods that we should instead promote. That is precisely the point made by the IAASTD report (UN panel of 1000's of agricultural science and development experts) that biotech firms refused to sign when experts refused to promote GE tech as a necessity for sustainable and equitable development.

Also, since GMOs use more herbicide, we are likely to see a greater superweed problem than with conventional ag. Or at best, we don't know, so there is no sense in making unsubstantiated assertions as to GMO crops being no worse.

Finally, and pay attention this time, the patent system of GMO tech squeezes small farmers in ways that conventional agriculture cannot; farmers used to be able to save their seeds and they didn’t depend as much on the companies selling them a seed-pesticide system. Small subsistence farmers are critical to the food self-sufficiency of the developing world; their disappearance combined with the growth of cash crops for export associated with corporate/industrial agriculture will mean greater food shortages. To be sure, consolidation of agribusiness takes place in conventional ag but not necessarily at the same pace and under the thumb of chemical companies that have a remarkably fetid record of manufacturing (DDT, PCB, RBGH, agent orange, and on), but hey, the tool @1 insists it’s all a conspiracy theory.

@116 ("the patent system of GMO tech squeezes small farmers...")
There is no special patent system for GMOs. Plant seeds have been patented for more than 80 years, where were the whiners then? Indeed, there's far more patents on non-GMO seeds than on GMO ones. If you want to reform that legal system, go ahead, but how is going after GMOs going to help that cause? It won't. Also, all patents expire, and the one for the most common Maize vairety is set to expire and go public in 2016.

Did you read the full IAASTD 2011 report? Do you know what else the IAASTD studies found?

That world cereal/plant protein crop yields have been steadily declining since before the introduction of GMO. And that while world population will increase by more than 34% by 2050 cereal crop production will be less than it is now.

Combine that with climate change and the profitability of biofuels competing for arable land and you have a recipe for massive famine.

Conventional farming methods can't to deal with that. They can't. Not without bringing back virtual slavery. So. What do we do? I'm for food labeling and further study but at some point we will have to move forward before it's too late.

Yes we have these terrible monopolistic agribusinesses that are making matter worse. And yes there are serious problems with the focus on the herbicide resistant strains of various crops - but the fact is GMO technology is the only way - aside from radical population control and climate change measures - to deal with the problems looming down the road.

Most of the anti-GMO movement is knee-jerk, unscientific, and completely uneducated (see the "OMG! Oatmeal trout!" bullshit right here). 90% of the movement has the level of sophistication of the anti-vaccer and global warming denial movement. They don't think. They FEEL.

That worries me. It should worry any reasonable person. No matter how well intended we could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

@116

I didn't say conventional agriculture has some of the disadvantages of GMO's, it has ALL of them. With none of the advantages of GMO's, which happen to include the ability to create crops that require less pesticide (that the companies with the most money happen to like pesticide has nothing to do with GMo technology and everything to do with those companies) as well as little things like actually being able to feed the world.

Also, even if GMO's were the only group to patent seeds (not at all true), non GMO seeds would still be available. I am relatively certain not passing this initiative will suddenly make growing non GM crops illegal.

Having a problem with GMO's because you don't like Monsanto is like having problems with shoes because you don't like Nike. It doesn't make sense, and only hurts people. The difference is railing against shoes just leaves people with sore feet, and railing against GMO's leaves people starved or dead.

"Also, even if GMO's were the only group to patent seeds (not at all true), non GMO seeds would still be available. I am relatively certain not passing this initiative will suddenly make growing non GM crops illegal."

Ha! I meant will NOT make non GM crops illegal. Should go without saying, but you never know what some folks will believe.

Consider this: After the only long-term comprehensive animal feeding study shows deadly impacts from GMOs, the GMO “Yes Men” declare that no more long-term studies should be conducted. Excuse me?
The truly pro-science approach is to demand the biotech industry prove their products are safe via third party testing and insist on multi-generational long-term studies. As of now, the overwhelming trend is to publicly discredit the studies that have produced evidence that GMOs are not safe and inhibit further studies. That stance, the disclaiming of any and all scientific claims that disagree with biotech’s assertions, is decidedly not pro-science!
http://www.soilassociation.org/motherear…

The EU hasn't banned GMOs, they simply have strict regulations for their approval. Given that you couldn't be bothered to, I dunno, fucking Google your own statements says to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

What does it say about the Seattle Times that they oppose I522? DAH! Why are the companies that grow and manufacture our food resistant to adding the GMO information on food labels already on the products? What are they afraid of? Will the public stop buying the product? HMMM!
They've already spent more money fighting this initiative than it will take to add the information on the label.

For fuck's sake. Look, the fears about GMOs and health are bullshit, but let's forget that for a minute and let you freak out about them if you want. The bigger point is: YOU CAN ALREADY AVOID THEM BY BUYING ORGANIC.

Yes, there already exists a voluntary, protected labeling scheme which specifically tells you which foods you, the anti-GMO special snowflake, can consume to avoid acquiring a green glow or giving birth to a pork roast later on. So what's the big deal? Why do you need to add more anti-science crap to labels on top of that?

@115: "I keep seeing talk about moncultures, herbicide abuse and giant agribusinesses. None of this has anything at all to do with GMO's."

Of course. People don't even know what they're afraid of.

@123

There have been a lot of studies of the effect of GMO's over time - I assume you are talking about either the pig one that purported to show higher levels of stomach inflammation in pigs, or the one that showed GM food gave a slightly increased risk of cancer in rats.

Both go against the findings of numerous other studies. The pig one is just bad science - unable to get into any peer reviewed journal and with data that did not support the conclusion. The rat one is not so much bad as too small and sort of incoherent - the study used a variety of lab rat prone to cancer and had only 10 animals in each group, which isn't enough to account for chance. Funnily enough, that same study found that adding pesticide to the rats water made them live longer than rats on a normal diet. That doesn't prove pesticide is good for rats, so much as one given batch of ten cancer prone rats might be a bit hardier overall than one other batch.

GMO yes-Men have no power to declare studies should or should not be done, and more studies are being released all the time. The only one's that get attention are the few that go against what everyone else has found.