In Case You Missed It: Seattle Times Editorial Urges Its Readers To “Start A Garden”

Comments

1
"Buy organic or start a garden" actually is a stronger statement, at least if your rationale for GMO = bad is based on the woes of conventional agriculture. If that's not your rationale, the Yes on 522 website needs a serious overhaul. All its environmental arguments are anti-conventional-agriculture more than anything else. Buying organic might actually help sustainable agriculture, but avoiding GMO crops probably won't.
2
My problem with 522 is that "genetically modified" does not automatically mean "bad." It's not like you're absorbing modified DNA and becoming more resistant to pesticides yourself or something. There's no scientific basis for this kind of paranoia.
3
So wait. If only 4% of available food is organic. Wouldn't it be better to create an official sticker for organic that is better than "all natural" which is used improperly?

Instead of making 96% of companies, many of whom are out of state relabel ALL of their products for Seattle?
4
Your Seattle Times criticisms remind me so much of the criticisms laid out in the Introduction of a 1965 book I got at a yard sale over the summer. Kind of hilarious. It's just for the first couple of the pages of the Intro. He moves beyond the petty criticisms for the remaining 5 pages, getting to the good stuff. Thanks for the laugh.
5
You don't think all GMO food is bad? Fine. I still want to know which foods are and which foods aren't, so I can decide for myself.

And as for making 96% of companies relabel food for Seattle (actually, it's Washington State), companies do that anyway based on the state in which they're selling the food. Label updates are a routine part of business for the food industry, based on what they think will sell. It is a regular cost of doing business – a small one at that – and is already built into their cost structure. Companies will have 18 months in which to comply with this law and the majority of them would have been updating some part of their labeling in that time anyway.
6
Thanks for comparing the mandated warning label to a cigarette warning label. They're alike enough that there is literally no other comparison. "gluten free" is not a comparison- that is an advertisement, and not mandated by the government.
7
@5 keeping GE bulk commodity goods separate (currently they are mixed, and Organic is separate), tracking and enforcement will be the costs, not just changing the packaging. If you think building new grain silos and building a new bureaucracy will be cheap, I think you're mistaken. And what of bulk commodities that come from out of state? How will we buy them?
8
Regarding the warning label-ness, the author asks rhetorically, "Is fat, sugar, sodium, or artificial flavorings warning labels?"

That's pretty disingenuous because fat, sugar, sodium, and artificial flavors are all listed in the ingredients list on the back of the package. The better comparison would be for mandatory labels on the front of packages, like "contains transfats" which actually is a warning. There is no point comparing the 522 label to anything but another front-of-package mandatory conspicuous label. For having heard these arguments "at every debate", the author seems not to have understood them.
9
I just assume that ALL pre-packaged or processed food products have some amount of GMO ingredients (particularly those containing corn, soy, Canola/Rapeseed oil & sugar or derivatives of these), unless it's labeled "100% Organic"; it makes my shopping decisions much easier.

And no, I don't necessarily think GMO's are bad per se, I just think they haven't been around or studied long enough to know whether or not there are any long-term negative effects, so why take unnecessary risks in the meantime?
10
I am sure the Times also didn't mention the money people opposed to 522 are also big ad buyers with the Times.

11
Had the initiative not been so poorly written I'd be on board, but the 'findings' section is mostly BS and the label requirement is not in keeping with normal food labeling.

Ditch the pseudo-science and only require a label like that for allergens.

That and make the requirements fair across all food types.
12
I don't understand why you would want to create government regulation and bureaucracy to do something that can be accomplished with a phone app.
13
@11 is correct that the label requirement is not like normal food labeling. Check out some of the FDA food labeling guidelines here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulati…

They're kind of interesting, if you're into that sort of thing. 522 certainly doesn't read like any kind of official labeling guidelines, unfortunately.
14
Yes, and three years ago, the Federal Government were about to start 'front of package' labeling initiatives when the food and beverage manufacturers and retailers "willingly joined forces" and announced they would develop a new front-of-package nutrition labeling system - including a $50 million consumer education campaign. Yes, we're talking about our state (and Maine and Connecticut if more states jump in) for now, but the overall objective is to get national labeling - like 64 other countries have.
15
@14 Indeed, the "join the bandwagon" argument is the best one I've heard. For the sake of exports, for the sake of mollifying activists here and abroad, we should label.
17
You know, I don't really care anymore if you label the food or not anymore. GMO penetration is huge in this country and if you decide to go GMO free - well I'll give you three guess who the largest seller of seed for those farmers are. I'm just disappointed at all the folks who lack the imagination to see how beneficial these breeding techniques could be.

Furthermore, it feels like the environmentalism and sustainable food communities are turning their backs on a technology that would remove many of the barriers towards mainstream organic and local food production.

Here's what I really don't understand. We already know that GMOs are safe. Raku comes in here often enough to tell us that the real issue isn't safety but environmental. Monocultures, invasiveness, pesticide use, all that fun stuff. The two problems with the environmental criticism to GMO use is twofold:

1. Simply inserting a gene into the genome of a plant does not, in and of itself, make it horrible for the environment. The type of design used to breed the plant however does. In essence, not "GMOs in general" but "these particular species of GMO".

2. The problems of monocultures, invasiveness, pesticide and fertilizer overuse are problems of modern cultivation, and have been problems way before GMOs showed up to the party.

Look, we all know how intensive and expensive organic food production is. If you replaced all the farms in the word with organic farms, you wouldn't be able to feed the world, and for those that it could feed, the costs would be enormous.

Anyone who's studied agricultural science knows that the development of beneficial traits in plants takes an incredibly long time, is labor intensive, and you're limited to the genomes of plants that are able to interbreed. That's why GMOs are so awesome - instead of shuffling two whole genomes together in a random pattern you can only deal with the genes you're interested in. This is especially important when the particular trait you're looking for doesn't exist within a given plant family.

So why in the heck aren't organic farming groups supporting the development of high-yield GMOs that are designed to work within the limits of organic farming? Don't folks want to see prices go down and yields go up?

Why aren't the locavores calling for GMOs that are customized for particular climate zones and growing regions? GMOs that are resistant to the local pests?

The problem with GMOs is that we let folks like Monsanto and Syngenta call all the shots and refuse to support public research for GMOs that will benefit us rather than their bottom line. When I see initiatives like this, and the paranoia that comes with, I just shake my head.

Label all you want, but why in the hell isn't anyone calling for ethical GMOs?
18
How about having companies that label their food as 'GMO free' be inspected and pay the associates inspection costs.
19
It's not about making GMO's "bad". It's about choice. I choose not to eat GMO's because the science is not yet sufficient to rule out any negative consequences. Scientists and researchers are not omniscient. There was no scientific evidence that DDT was dangerous...until there was. There was no scientific evidence that smoking was dangerous...until there was. And so on...
20
We need to add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to the food chain because organic is too expensive.

Priceless.
21
@18 - I have asked that a number of times, and seen others ask as well. No one ever addresses that idea. It must be a terrible idea if no one is willing to dignify it.
22
@19 If you don't believe the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organizations or regulatory agencies both here and in the United States when they say that GMOs are safe for human consumption, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, there was plenty of evidence that DDT was dangerous, that's why it was used to kill things. I mean come on, do you think people were applying it just because they had nothing better to do?
23
Polls say 522 has as much chance of losing as Mike McGinn has of another four years as mayor. Hardly anybody in Washington thinks GMO labels are a bad idea.

And apparently the reason so many Washingtonians are "wrong" about 522 is that they don't get science the way all you dudes in Utilikilts get science?

Wait. Aren't you the same guys who want to starve the schools so you can have a tax cut? And then you cry because not enough citizens are have your deep grasp of science.

Also: stop wearing Utilikilts. Not flattering on you.
24
Label it!

And stop complaining about my Scottish cultural heritage - utilikilts rock!
25
@23 I'm neither a dude nor a blowhard regarding education funds. Tax the shit out of me and give us awesome schools. But hey, thanks for generalizing.

Of course 522 will pass. That's obvious. But when it does, I want you all to know you've done fuck all to promote sustainable agriculture, fuck all to support public research, and fuck all to promote nutrition. I'm fine with you having all the information in the world, but I'm not okay with people being ignorant arrogant assholes running around thinking they've made some kind of positive difference.
26
@22 Your statement "GMOs are safe" is laughable Biochemistry can create organisms which are perfectly safe to eat and it could create organisms which are downright dangerous.

What I see on the WHO website is the statement "All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food." That is a far cry from your synopsis.

The site is actually quite interesting to read. It discusses the difference between a food which has been created using traditional agricultural techniques where the existing characteristics of plants can be reduced or amplified versus GMO techniques which allow novel new combinations of characteristics to be produced. The latter requires consideration of toxicity, allergenicity, nutrition, stability, and unintended consequences.

There are potentials for novel allergies to GMO foods. There are potentials for inserted genes to outcross to similar species in the wild causing unintended consequences. And there is the potential for gene transfer from GMO crops to the consumers of those crops.

The label will help consumers decide what foods they want to buy. It will let them know whether traditional agricultural techniques or novel biochemistry has been used. I think in general people may want to scrutinize GMO foods a bit more closely until we get used to the new offerings.

http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetical…

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publicatio…

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/biotech/en…
27
Watch the interview..a good education on the dangers of GMOs and their current mode of use in the US, which is to sell more chemicals to spray on crops.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl…

Story at-a-glance
There are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops. There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects
Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases alongside our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food
Glyphosate is not “just” an herbicide. It was originally patented as a mineral chelator. It immobilizes nutrients, making them unavailable for your body. It’s also patented as a potent antibiotic that can devastate human gut bacteria
The EPA recently doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food. Soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 400 times the limit at which it can impact your health
28
It won't let me post the full link...Google Dr. Huber's interview on the Mercola website. We are poisoning ourselves and the earth.
29
@19, people always knew smoking wasn't something that enhanced your health, what with the throat irritation, cough, etc.
30
@25

Yes. That's the real crime. People will think they made a positive difference. Every day, you'll wake up and people -- out there! -- will think they made a positive difference. As you brush your teeth, they'll be there. Everywhere. Thinking they made a positive difference. All the time. Day in. Day out. You'll lie awake in bed, unable to forget all those people out there who think they made a positive difference. You'll never sleep again.

And then the labels. The labels! Everywhere. On all the food. So. Many. Labels! Aaaaaaaah!
31
How about a warning label that tells us what pesticides and herbicides were used on the food?
32
I don't really trust the Seattle Times OR The Stranger to give me advice on this issue. I'll ask the people who work and own the local fruit and vegetable stand where I shop what they think and recommend. That just makes more sense to me.
33
Stop with the bullshit line that this is about giving people more information. This initiative is nothing more than trying to brand enough food to scare enough uneducated people to start forcing food companies to stop sourcing GMOs. Its the same vein of granola anti science as the anti vaccine movement.
34
@30 Did you get mugged by someone in a lab coat or something? These are the same people who are trying to promote strong education systems, address climate change and improve the environment.

What is your problem? You don't understand why a bunch of people who've dedicated their lives to the study of the natural world at great personal sacrifice might be upset when a bunch of folks who haven't spout absolute garbage? Why don't you spend a few years of your life in the laboratory working to prevent others from suffering serious illness or death and see how it feels to deal with this constant stream of people who can't even open a science book.

Look around you! You're surrounded by folks who honestly believe that there have been no peer-reviewed studies on the safety of GMOs. They believe the word of random snake oil salesmen on the internet over repeated evidence coming out of the best, independently funded laboratories in the world.

Label all the shit you want. I don't care anymore, because I've realized the folks like you and others here don't want to actually improve things. Enjoy watching public funding dry up and leave Monsanto and Syngenta and their ilk as the only players in this game.
36
@34

I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about condescending C-average dudebros who work in IT who bloviate about science. They'd like you to think they're spokesmen for Science. They're spokesmen for corporate greed.

This isn't about mistrust of science. This is about mistrust of giant corporations who exploit technology to boost next quarter's profits. The arrogant IT dudes who lecture the world on science are corporate tools. They kowtow to wealth because they think the free market they learned everything about in seventh grade enriches you for being right.

At least Calvinists and Mormons worship the rich because they think God loves the rich more. These arrogant douchebags have no excuse.

I know there are people who believe things about GMOs that aren't true. And you want me to help them by giving them GMOs without telling them? There are people who believe things about fluoridated water that aren't true, but I'm not about to give them fluoridated water without telling them. I'm not going to give vaccine deniers vaccinations without their knowledge. The cure for ignorance is information, not subterfuge and obscurantism.
37
@22 - No, I'm not saying that people had nothing better to do than use DDT. It was marketed as a "wonder chemical". Here's a snippet from panna.org:

DDT was one of the first chemicals in widespread use as a pesticide. Following World War II, it was promoted as a wonder-chemical, the simple solution to pest problems large and small. Today, nearly 40 years after DDT was banned in the U.S., we continue to live with its long-lasting effects:

Food supplies: USDA found DDT breakdown products in 60% of heavy cream samples, 42% of kale greens, 28% of carrots and lower percentages of many other foods.
Body burden: DDT breakdown products were found in the blood of 99% of the people tested by CDC.
Health impacts: Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age, according to the President’s Cancer Panel.

Scientists of the day thought it was just dandy - yet we live with the effects 40 years later. I'm not saying that GMO's are bad nor am I saying that there should be no development. I simply want to make my own choice until there is enough evidence to convince me. If you are convinced, great, chomp away and enjoy.
38
@29 - people may have known many things about smoking's hazards. I said that there was no scientific proof of those effects for many years. Beyond that, people were told that smoking was good for them. Look at some of the old ads on YouTube. What do scientists say now?
39
@37, are you missing that "DDT breakdown product" is also known as the flame retardants added to foams and clothes to keep kids from going up in flames ? PBDEs

I support mandatory labeling of GMO-free products. There's fewer of them, so it's more efficient. When Whole Foods and PCC are both supporters of a nonGMO label that's nationally used, why do we need to make a "GMO label" for those who would prefer to buy nonGMO foods anyway? http://www.nongmoproject.org/

WIC appears not to pay for cage-free or brown eggs too.... why are the WIC overlords not allowing support of non-white eggs or tuna in 12 oz cans ? Oh, yeah, government has some stupid rules like that when you spend their money.

40
And I am tired of the Kosher emblems being on the back of the products too... I think WA should lead in being Jew-friendly and conspicuously place an "OK for Jews" label on the front of the package. It's my right to know, in an inaccurate term that's a bit offensive in its inaccuracy, and it should be on the front so everyone can see it. Also, I intend to buy only products that don't have that Jew label, because Jews killed Jesus.
41
Hrm, did you see this from the WA State Academy of Sciences ? It was put together by 6 PhD's, so obviously it won't represent raku's "feelings" properly.

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/State…

The Washington State Academy of Sciences (WSAS) has released a new report about what would happen if Initiative 522 passes.

I-522 would require food manufacturers to label genetically modified products. The race has become hotly contested and is drawing money from out-of-state donors.

The report, commissioned by key legislative committees in the state Senate and House, shows foods from genetifically modified crops are substantially equivalent in nutrition compared to non-genetically modified crops and that roughtly 70 percent of the processed foods in U.S. supermarkets contain genetically modified ingredients.

The report also shows it is unclear how much prices would increase. Experts believe the regulatory oversight and lab work would be more costly than the actual labels.

WSAS co-chairs and members emphasize that "neither the committee nor the Academy itself advocate or recommend approval or rejection of I-522 but rather seeks to provide an unbiased evidence base related to the Initiative."

http://www.washacad.org/initiatives/inde…
42
http://www.washacad.org/about/files/pres…
Foods from GM crops are “substantially equivalent” in nutritional value as compared to non-GM crops based on established analytic standards. Exceptions include “golden rice”, engineered to produce higher levels of beta-carotene to combat vitamin A deficiency in children in certain parts of the world. While there are no significant, repeatable studies that demonstrate any adverse effect on health due to approved and marketed foods with GM ingredients, the challenge of “proving safety” as opposed to evidence of the lack of adverse effects was acknowledged by the committee. Continuous monitoring of food safety, consistent with national approaches, was recommended as a basic requirement for both foods with and without GM-based ingredients.

The committee noted that, at present, roughly 70% of the processed foods in U.S. supermarkets contain GM ingredients, primarily due to the high percentage of foods that contain ingredients from soybean and corn, which are overwhelming, >90%, GM in the U.S. As a result, the primary economic issues associated with mandatory labeling are due to trade effects. These effects are likely exacerbated when regulations differ among states and between countries.

The costs associated with mandatory labeling and compliance are highly likely to be borne both privately and publicly, reflecting both increased costs passed on by the food industry and the costs of government agency regulation. “The greatest costs are not in the labeling itself”, clarified Marsh, “but in the segregation and demonstration of GM-free status, costs that would affect the price of both GM and non-GM containing foods”. However the estimates of the costs vary widely, reflecting the lack of “after the fact” data that would be available if a single state were to require mandatory labeling. The degree of regulatory oversight, required laboratory analyses, and level of litigation would each impact the costs but are either imprecise or unknown. Better understanding of these costs would provide valuable information to the voter as each individual weighs the benefits of required labeling versus costs.
43
@36

I've said it twice now, and I'll say it a third time: I don't fucking care if you label the products or not. But those labels better be consistent, and they sure as hell better inform rather than scare people.

But you know what I wish you folks would do for once? I wish folks would support our publicly funded scientists and their research. I wish folks would support the only folks who are actually trying to steal fire from the gods and develop it around our needs instead of the needs of Monsanto shareholders.

That means not scaring the shit out of people who didn't pursue a career in the sciences. That means not stereotyping all advocates of science as libertarian computer janitors who worship the almighty dollar. (Though I'll be happy to join you in mocking them if that's cool) That means not allowing misinformation to propagate like venereal disease. That means shouting down those who refuse to educate themselves about basic biology.

The fact of the matter is that the only way to have GMOs that benefit is to to develop them ourselves. Either we can support non-profit research or we can let Monsanto win. I'm just surprised at all the folks choosing the latter rather than the former.
44
@1: "All its environmental arguments are anti-conventional-agriculture more than anything else. Buying organic might actually help sustainable agriculture, but avoiding GMO crops probably won't."

They wouldn't be able to get people to vote for it without those lame pleas.
45
@43: "they sure as hell better inform rather than scare people."

But they won't. People against GMOs aren't looking to inform, or else they'd do exactly what you say, actually work to research "what they don't know" instead of being afraid of "what could be".
46
I mean this sort of "'informed customer' but don't regulate, fund science, or ACTUALLY INFORM THE CUSTOMER" bullshit is Ron Paul's wet dream. Not the progressive's.
47
Why label anything? Obviously so many of you have no concerns about what is in your food. Lets all get behind mystery meat and Fukishima fish. Science has never done us wrong ever. Funny how Monsanto and their ilk won't let anyone truly know what is in those seeds, they keep claiming proprietary information. Studies you want studies to know the effects. That is big government talk. So lets just ignore that. I find it interesting people are more concerned about protecting big corporate interests over what they maybe feeding themselves and their family. Shaking my head, really thought the people of Washington were smarter than this.
48
@49 Funny, you couldn't even bother to quote a single person who made any of the statements you claim. Why are you interesting in beating down strawmen rather than engaging with real people?

Who here is concerned about protecting "big corporate interests"? Why are you making things up?
49
I still don't see how a "may contain" label is informative-- That's just an "avoid" trigger, not information. May contain? Like, which type of gmo? is it just vegetable oil- which is 100% indistinguishable? How could you prove that the packaging is or is not accurate?
50
If it were legal and ethical to do, I would totally vote yes on I-522 in exchange for some of you folks enrolling in an college level biology class. The absolute lack of scientific literacy that is shown in every single one of these threads is a much, much greater problem than any quibbles about GMO labeling.
51
I don't think this needs to be very complicated.

I-522 is simply a vote on my right to know what's in my food, not a vote on GMO safety.

A "Yes" on I-522 means more information and clarity for me, and maybe less sales for Pepsi, Coke, Monsanto, DuPont, etc. (or whatever reasons they might have for spending millions against labeling?).

Too bad about the sales, but I want to know what's in my food.

So I am voting YES on I-522.
52
@43 @45

Do you think all the people living in countries that already label GMOs have "the shit scared out of them"? Like they're afraid to eat because they're in utter terror of GMOs? I'm pretty sure that would have made the BBC.

If you want to go into histrionics because the world is going to tip off its axis over adding a couple words to the front of some food packages, it would help your case if we couldn't peek across the pond to Europe or check out Australia or dozens of other countries and see nothing much of anything happened.

One of the first rules of FUD is to pick on something that isn't already working perfectly well in other places.
53
@52: The world hasn't upturned, but neither have any of the claimed effects of "frankenfood" since.
54
Unfortunately most people are unable to grow a food garden. First you need to have the space to grow your own food. Most people don't have enough to do that and many don't have it at all. Then you need to be able to afford the equipment that you're going to need. Someone working a minimum wage job won't be able to do that. There is also a lot that you're going to need to learn and know to be able to grow your own food successfully and most people aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to learn this. It takes years of dedicated work and experience to be a good farmer. Most important, you're going to need to devote a lot of time and care to tend your food garden. Most people with their busy schedules don't have that luxury. If you have children to take care of, have to take them to and from school, clean the house, make the meals, you're not going to have the time to give your food garden the care that it needs. Also, most people do not have the time to participate in a community garden and most do not have the time to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to do this either. Most people also do not have the time to spend harvesting the food from a garden, preparing it for canning, freezing, etc and they do not have the money to be able to purchase the equipment that you're going to need or learn how to do it successfully.
55
@54...I couldn't disagree with you more. Most people don't have the space to grow a garden sufficient to supply all their food needs. *Some* people don't have any suitable indoor or outdoor space to grow any food. *Most* people have enough space to grow some of their food. Herbs are excellent as garden ornamentals that you can eat. I grow beautiful mini-bell pepper bushes that we use as potted stoop plants AND eat. Out back on my patio (in pots) I grow kale, spinach, broccoli, and microgreens in the spring and fall and tomatoes (cherry and full-size), full-size bell peppers, and cucumbers in the summer. Am I eliminating the grocery store from my life? No! But I certainly don't buy much produce 8 months a year. The pots were a start-up cost, so was some topsoil to give them a foundation. Every year I buy 2 large bags of Leafgro organic soil at $11 each to refresh the pots, and I pick up a big trash bag of compost from the city (they give it away free here). My parents gardened, my grandparents gardened, most of my friends garden. And they all put their kids to work helping in the garden. It's a learning experience, and it won't kill them to get a little dirty. We grew a large garden when I was a kid...corn, asparagus, all manner of salad stuff, strawberries, and we had wild blackberries surrounding it. I think we spent about an hour out there a day watering, weeding, and harvesting, on top of a day's work to get everything going in the spring and tear it all down in the fall. We'd just do it after dad got home and before dinner (after all, usually some of our dinner was coming out of there). At that time, we did can, but you don't have to...you can just grow as much as you can eat fresh and give away any extras.

I agree that the big problem with GMOs is that RUR dominates the market, and ICK. But labeling does have a huge benefit for trade, as mentioned. {Puts on my USDA trade specialist hat...} Most developed countries have GMO labeling requirements, and it severely restricts US agriculture entry in those markets. It was one of the major complaints/negotiation sticking points I encountered when there. Those requirements aren't going anywhere, so it would really behoove us to catch up...
56
"Buying organic and starting a garden" doesn't take anything away from farmers, we are the farmers and it strengthens our communities. Coordination with our neighbors strengthens barter and trade. Everyone makes everyone stronger. We can't fulfill all our needs but everyone together can. That's truth coming from the most ancient civilizations."It takes a community" Corporations win because of the laziness of our society, keeping a garden is work,feeding our community is work, going to the grocery and buying is easy. It's all in how you look at it, your neighbors are lazier than you so your choices are limited.
57
I don't know if GMO's are good or bad.
But I ALWAYS think it's good to have transparency so that people can decide for themselves.
58
"Grow a garden" doesn't mean growing all your own food and undercutting the farmer. It most definitely supports the barter and trade society.It's literally impossible to grow your own supply within city limits. You can certainly support your neighbors crop while your neighbor supports yours. The corporation wins because your neighbors are lazy. Growing crops and going to market is work,plain and simple. Do you really need that pretty grass out there? Nope, not really. That's what your taxes cover those pretty parks in. You don't want to take the time to walk the kids and dogs all the way over there? Maybe you're the lazy neighbor then...
59
Needless to say I don't subscribe to the Seattle Times. Shoddy journalism is one of the reasons.
60
I have absolutely no problem with labeling foods that contain GMO's. In fact, once everyone finally understands that everything they've eaten their entire lives has had some GMO in it, the anti-science fear will evaporate and claims of Frankenfood will be seen as foolish hyperbole, and silly Organo-fascist propaganda.
61
@51 -- I agree. It is very simple, really. I want to know if food has GMO ingredients for the same reason I want to know if a product is made in China. I may still buy it, but if there is an alternative that costs about the same amount, I will buy that one. I am not sure if GMO crops are really dangerous, but I know the companies that support them are dicks. I don't like supporting dicks.