their food products may change my DNA.
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.
ot e YES on I-522 go to http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=…
no LONGER QUALIFIES to be a Senator/Congress person and
loses their seat, without benefits/retirement,
minus each year of corporate "buy-outs"..
All representatives must be evaluated on facts,
as educators experience, every four years. When failed,
position is replaced with alternate.
Endorse and share: http://wh.gov/DOs9
How much does it contain? Which parts? Should you avoid the area altogether? Hold your breath, or just not touch anything?
Sometimes vague information is worse than no information at all.
Saul Of-Hearts, I can't agree that "Sometimes vague information is worse than no information at all". While the NO 522 campaign pitches the idea that the initiative is flawed and confusing it's actually written pretty clearly, and with an eye towards not stepping on anything covered in federal law that might overturn it. But since as many people will read this initiative as read the POS i-1183 it doesn't matter.
What's clear is that the bio-chem backers of NO 522 have been blocking and refusing to release information on the impacts of their products for decades. The USDA and FDA refuse to ask for it, because if they had the research in their hands they would have to intervene. And the public and consumer groups are shut down by claims of trade secrets and proprietary information.
These corporations are like the tobacco companies of decades ago. Hiding research that proves negative health impact caused by their products until someone inside leaks it all out and the government is forced to step in and do what they should have been doing all along - acting in the public's best interests.
I don't know who's worse. The bio-chem companies that do things that knowingly make people ill (through exposing them to toxic agricultural chemicals, herbicides, in particular, where the applications on GMO plants is far higher that with conventional agriculture) or the government shills that run interference for them to keep information bottled up and to keep reforms or controls from being enacted. What I do know is that they are both some of the worse kinds of human filth.
And, for what it's worth, California has put more into Yes on 522 than WA has.
So do you want those 10 to have free reign going forward? Or give them one little boundary, one small hurdle, this food label?
Care to explain how that works exactly? Reptilian technology?
Yeah, well my fuckups before I've had my first cup of coffee are better than your best shit on your best day.
But I doubt that fact tells us anything about the quality of the program.
I myself, anecdotally, am fully invested with the importance of this issue, knowing that avoiding processed foods cleared up several things in my own health - it only stands to reason that this should too.
This is a health issue beyond states rights, it's a federal issue.
What is your solution to the looming overpopulation, environmental concerns, and global warming?
Complain all that you want about the scientifically and economically and healthfully proven solutions that have dominated improvements in crop science, but when you don't have any alternatives to a proven success story, your complaints are worthless.
Complain all you want about science, but when the primary goal of this Yes of 522 campaign is quite literally a smear campaign devoid of any facts (case in point, ""These are the same people who gave us DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and napalm," says PCC Natural Markets spokeswoman Trudy Bialic."). And complaining about the monopoly of 5 companies but don't seem to find any of the purchasers (true farmers) from these companies complaining with them just rings hollow.
So now what has the Yes of 522 crowd resorted to??? "Look at who is donating! The horror! They must be evil!" If Yes on 522 actually had a case or a point to their rhetoric, perhaps they should make it.
I'm Pro Science and educated! I like facts! So I'm No on 522.
Makes a difference.
Corporate interests and those friendly to them have opposed every truth in labeling initiative since the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. If you don't recall that, then read Upton Sinclair's muckraking novel, the Jungle. There is a 21st century muckraking novel that will probably be written. The challenge will be short of a presidential commission (as in the Holmes commission under Teddy Roosevelt that led to the Pure Food And Drug Act) we're not likely to see any cooperation. Prior to that act becoming law,the Coca Cola company had cocaine in their cola product without a label indicating it so. We'd think that to be reprehensible today. 100 years from now we'll think the same of GMO labeling. That is why I did vote YES to support initiative I-522 along with other kitchen and health conscious voters. Peace!