Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would let states require that any food or beverage containing genetically-engineered ingredients be clearly labeled. http://goo.gl/pT290
79 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 179 previous comments
- He +1'ed himself ROFLMAO
Self-impressed career academic diagnosis confirmed. "Good day" to you as well.Jun 18, 2012
- Just for accuracy's sake I did not feel the need to duplicate his methods since I said very clearly that even if the shared IP were true it still wasn't evidence of an industry affiliation of any import to this discussion. You go right on looking for gotchas though.
I think you might have skipped right over the part where he said that he got the IP from another historical WHOIS record which showed that biofortified.org had previously been assigned the same IP as these other sites, which share strikingly similar site templates. But again, you're the one that keeps dwelling on it when both myself and have yielded that there is no evidence of industry affiliation before you even spoke up in your "defense".
Now, would you care to address the meat of my other commentary in response to your diatribe, or at least give an unqualified answer to the question already posed: Do consumers have the right to mandate corporations must provide the information they are requesting through constitutional legislation? (Please note that right does not equate to voluntary compliance, but rather to a legally enforceable regulation that can be implemented by government)
While you're at it, can you please reconcile your continued insistence that your politics on this issue are supported by science, when in fact the practice of willfully suppressing information is adverse to the very nature of scientific inquiry?Jun 18, 2012
- You misunderstood/ignored a part of my explanation...still looking for some pathetic "gotcha," be it just a poorly aimed general insult to my intelligence and/or use of the internet at this point...so I will endeavor to be more explicit, in deference to your choice to yet belabor the issue.
I never claimed NOT to recognize that the biofortification.org cite was a different word than biofortified ...I also explained that I did not just randomly link your site to that cite of my own accord, nor did I even imagine to go looking for some similarly named entity for any reason. There are a good number of "snoop" sites that purport to provide additional reverse lookup info beyond straight "who is" data...which immediate data I accurately had first noted. I then quickly cycled through a few other of these investigatory sites, tracking links they provided and contemporaneously posted my further observations. One of these sites linked YOUR org to the IP address of the biofortification entity...then claiming both were located out of California.
I then did a straight "who is" which I provided a link to in my earlier reply...and from there I found the HarvestPlus connection as I said. I did note that the WhoIs located that server out of Virginia. The names being so similar and there seemingly being a variety of server locations showing for both entities, California being the shared...I felt I had seen enough to at least note the connection. The snoop sites tend to be geared toward inviting you into paying for even greater detail, and as you may surmise, offer up suggestive plausible connections to urge belief they have something to offer, but payment is required to truly unlock greater detail. As your entity is but a side issue of the overarching topic of the thread and my actual concerns over labeling, I was not about to pay for greater clarification. ..this is why I really did not put too much stock in the finding even at the time, and did not rely on it more than to simply note my findings.
You have clarified and I have already acknowledged the connection appears false...CGIAR seemed a surprise anyway, as I have been quite plain that I believe you instead to be a shill for Monsanto, a private for-profit corp.,not of an admittedly previously unknown world agricultural organization. I still believe you seek ultimate employment in the lab of a seed producer...as at least partial source of strong pro-company bias in your positions.
Nice try at sidestepping that you have been a sort of "professional combatant" of these exact issues for years. The several topics I alluded to were meant primarily to communicate to you that I had indeed tapped into some of your prior arguments dating back several years, without inviting wholesale further digression into ad hominem attack of you as a person. It was meant as a disincentive to push for more particularized rehashing of your older battles and arguments...as said, my interest is not in vilifying you but in addressing specious opposition to the consumers' right to know how food has been manipulated and produced, in areas beyond just GMO seeds and techniques.
Once again, I invented nothing...and had reviewed with interest your opponents' comments beneath the article dating back to early 2010...issues about grant funding, etc.
Your rising to the defense of Monsanto more directly:
Monsanto linking to your blog on their website about 3/4 down the page:
Monsanto and others using their PR teams to allegedly already support your group in questioned ways aside from remuneration:
Again...I don't care who you are or what your aspirations may be...only to the degree you want to pretend no motivational connection to Monsanto whatsoever and shrug off any questioning as to bias in your expressed viewpoints.
That said...I am not out on a witch hunt of you...I post to this forum and your people appeared to troll the thread with dismissive disdain and disregard for simple belief in the consumer's right to know.
Best of luck to you in your future in the GMO field...please strive for complete long term testing even of the more seemingly benign modifications...and also for Monsanto and other patent holders to abstain from stifling through direct and indirect means, contrary or damaging study findings from outside the industry's extensive network across academia and otherwise.Jun 18, 2012
- That second link could have just as easily been a RoundUp commercial...
Karl, your credibility is shot, lack of evidence for your blog's affiliation with industry notwithstanding. As already noted, we have not seen your crew post a single thing on these threads for months, and you all decide to pile on to this one topic in force. That's quacking like a duck if I've ever heard it.
You may be a well-intentioned proponent of your scientific endeavors, working purely for the betterment of mankind with no ulterior motive whatsoever... it doesn't matter. You're still making the argument for selective information suppression in direct contravention of constitutional law. You state:
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument for mandatory labeling that shows that the actual benefits are greater than the drawbacks of the costs of segregation, testing, and other downstream effects."
Here's an argument for you: Per the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution, the residents of a state have the authority to regulate their food policy through legislation, their ability to provide you with a "convincing argument" be damned. The residents of VT and CA, by overwhelming margins, support mandatory labeling. You stand with Monsanto in choosing the path of suppression and litigation rather than education and public outreach out of some supposed concern for the benefit not being commensurate with the cost... how is that scientific again? Isn't a discussion of cost vs. benefit one for the voters? It's their money after all, right?
Even if you can prove with 100% certainty that GMO product is safe, you're still wrong on the legal side of things... if people want to mandate that product labeling can't be green that's their prerogative. You live in a democracy, get happy with it.
And finally, for all of our benefit, drop the "science" act... this isn't about science. It's about pushing your own self-interest in a GMO market politically. You're standing with Republicans who want to regress society to the dark ages of theocracy and superstition just to keep this industry from losing market share. Prove me wrong... support consumer access to information and consumer education.
Censorship and denial of self-determination through [punitive cost of] litigation are not the best ways to win hearts and minds in a free society, nor is holier-than-thou sophistry masquerading as objective science. And if you do happen to have that direct line to Monsanto that many suspect, please relay the suggestion that they redirect the hundreds of millions they are currently spending on lobbying, litigation and intimidation to public relations and educational outreach. That would go a lot further towards rebuilding the societal trust they've squandered through decades of pure evil than perpetual suppression campaigns.Jun 18, 2012
- Considering the fact that the 10th amendment exists and there are already existing precedents of states setting their own standards for consumable and durable goods, I'm left wondering why Sanders feels it necessary to pass additional legal standards to protect states from the fear of federal lawsuit. He's a Senator, he has a finger closer to the pulse than I do, which makes me wonder if there's someone trying to draft legislation designed to somehow block labeling requirements by states at the federal level?Jun 20, 2012
- It's precisely for the reason already stated: with no federal law on GMO at all, policy is up to the courts. This gives Monsanto great power to use litigation as a bargaining chip. If Bernie's amendment passes, even the most conservative of federal judges will have no option but to say "case dismissed". Monsanto will have to take litigation over the constitutionality of the amendment itself to court, i.e. sue the feds instead of the states, to get it overturned.
States clearly have authority to do this on their own, but all the better if there's federal law to keep it out of the courts.Jun 20, 2012