proposition 37

[inbredredneck]

I know we are not supposed to talk politics, but this directly affects ag. What are your thoughts on this good or bad.

 

[TexasBred]

Seems it would be more simple to label what does NOT contain any GMO. "People have a right to know". Right....I guess it will be on the label but few shoppers read labels other than expiration dates and don't know what they're reading if they do read the label. Next we'll have to put a list of definitions on the label. Prices will go up...these will be passed on to the consumer. Sort of like aflatoxin. People and animals have been eating it since the creation of corn but now it has a name and there is a very unscientific way of measuring it, yet the grower is penalized if it is above a certain level.

 

[greybeard]

That's the fly in the buttermilk isn't it? The "definition" of gmo. If the recent bruhah over Tifton 85/prussic acid is any indication, WAY too many folks think anything that wasn't already here in year 0001 bc and/or isn't in it's same form qualifies for the gmo label.

 

[inbredredneck]

This is concerning genetically engineered, not genetically modified.

 

[greybeard]

This is concerning genetically engineered, not genetically modified.

That, depends who is talking about it--and it goes along with what I said. Read this article from Ventura County Calif and you will see what I mean. Most people make no distinction between GE and GM.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/22/ ... netically/

And, I think you will find this holds true thru out most of America--they see it all as one and the same.
Another from San Francisco:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ ... 802436.php

 

[CottageFarm]

Good grief, are you going to try to turn this into a matter of semantics again.
From the consumers standpoint, GM/GE are the same thing. They fully undersand the differrence between hybridized and what (for example) Monsanto is doing with genetic engineering. Why do you persist is trying to muddy the waters with your own definitions. Common usage will prevail.

As for Prop 37, it is yet another stupid idea to be prop'd in Calfornia. They can't come up with any science to back up their claims, and their attempts to sway most consumers with fearmonging has been unfruitful because most people don't really care about GM produce. All it will accomplish is to increase food prices, hitting hardest the poor who can least afford yet another irrelevant and unneccesary regulation that raises food costs. But I'm sure the nations self appointed Nannies would feel vindicated for their efforts.

 

[greybeard]

Yes, common usage and common understandings:

From wiki:

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

Genetically modified foods (GM foods, or biotech foods) are foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), such as genetically modified crops or genetically modified fish. GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

 

[CottageFarm]

We were posting at the same time greybeard. :lol: And both with the same thought in mind....

 

[Anonymous]

Good grief, are you going to try to turn this into a matter of semantics again.
From the consumers standpoint, GM/GE are the same thing. They fully undersand the differrence between hybridized and what (for example) Monsanto is doing with genetic engineering. Why do you persist is trying to muddy the waters with your own definitions. Common usage will prevail.

As for Prop 37, it is yet another stupid idea to be prop'd in Calfornia. They can't come up with any science to back up their claims, and their attempts to sway most consumers with fearmonging has been unfruitful because most people don't really care about GM produce. All it will accomplish is to increase food prices, hitting hardest the poor who can least afford yet another irrelevant and unneccesary regulation that raises food costs. But I'm sure the nations self appointed Nannies would feel vindicated for their efforts.

Would anyone expect anything less from him?

 

[john250]

I DO NOT endorse this article but I'll link it because it may be of interest.
http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_M ... ebate.html
Note the advertisers keeping this rag alive

 

[inbredredneck]

The wording of the proposition does not ever mention the words genetically modified. Only genetically engineered. Even people in California know there is a difference.

 

[James T]

You might want to do some research on the terminology. I did, and the two terms are the same; used interchangeably.

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as “organisms in which the genetic material (deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA for short) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.” Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, also called genetic engineering, allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. The resulting organism is said to be genetically modified, genetically engineered, or transgenic."

http://source.southuniversity.edu/genet ... 80625.aspx

 

[inbredredneck]

James T

So in your opinion hybrid seedcorn is genetically engineered?

 

[greybeard]

The wording of the proposition does not ever mention the words genetically modified. Only genetically engineered. Even people in California know there is a difference.

How many dozens of links to California news sources, discussion boards and state assembly minutes would ya like to see that directly contradicts your last statement?

 

[inbredredneck]

The wording of the proposition does not ever mention the words genetically modified. Only genetically engineered. Even people in California know there is a difference.

How many dozens of links to California news sources, discussion boards and state assembly minutes would ya like to see that directly contradicts your last statement?

just a thought but maybe go read the proposition as it appears before the voters, versus what the news agency wants to report it reads.

 

[James T]

Based on what I'm reading, yes.

"GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques." So, using your example of hybrid corn, it has been genetically engineered, therefore modified.

"Typically, genetically modified foods are transgenic plant products: soybean, corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil. These may have been engineered for faster growth, resistance to pathogens, production of extra nutrients, or any other beneficial purpose."

 

[inbredredneck]

I will agree that all genetically engineered organisms can be classified as genetically modified organisms. However not all genetically modified organisms have been genetically engineered. To modify one would make genetic changes to something that already existed. To engineer one would use something that previously did not exist to make genetic changes. Hence the two different definitions of modify and engineer. Even inbred folks can read Websters and realize that the word is being misused by the fear mongers. However from the past history here at CT not all folks can understand Websters.

 

[greybeard]

I did read it, but also read what many (if not most) of the"people in California" are saying, writing, reading and evidently thinking about it. It matters little how any piece of legislation is worded--the only thing that matters is how and why the voting public interprets that wording and in this case, the majority of the correspondence I have read is that Californians (and others) interpret GE and GM as one and the same.

 

[inbredredneck]

I did read it, but also read what many (if not most) of the"people in California" are saying, writing, reading and evidently thinking about it. It matters little how any piece of legislation is worded--the only thing that matters is how and why the voting public interprets that wording and in this case, the majority of the correspondence I have read is that Californians (and others) interpret GE and GM as one and the same.

of course they do the press has told them so, and they know nothing about ag. Even some people in ag don't understand the difference.

 

[Dave]

People want to starve themselves rather than eat something with GM/GE, I don't care. They want to survive of organic fruits nuts, and berries, I think that is great too. Some farmer will get to charge them extra for providing their organic fruit, nuts, and berries. And it leaves more food for the rest of us.