522?

Dave, I have already voted and I voted for it. My reasoning was pretty simple - if the big Agribusiness's are contributing so much money for the defeat of this, it means that I am for it. Agribusiness does not have my best interest as a priority.

Salmon, I caught and didn't have a rabbi pray over it while he ritually slaughtered it
Pulled Pork, mmm mmm cloven hoof bitch!
Bacon Cheeseburger... meat AND cheese fukkk yeah!
and I'm making some Babyback ribs tomorrow, probably going to eat some dungeness crab cakes the next day.

OK Hankster, I read the Washington State Academy of Sciences's White Paper and here's my book report on it for you...

Looks to me that it predicts anywhere from a marginal to 10% increase in the cost of food. Marginal is obviously OK, but 10% obviously isn't. The article states "The costs of actual labeling are a tiny fraction of the costs of compliance and certification." These costs come from not just labeling, but increased costs of sorting GMO from non GMO, certification testing as well as managing GM and non-GM crops for cross-pollination.

One point in the white paper that was not brought up yet ITT was the cost to the taxpayer through the state, not just the costs to consumers. Estimates for the cost to the taxpayer for the State hiring people to ensure compliance and enforcing this law range from $0.2 million per year to $22.5 million per year. $0.2 million is probably not worth complaining about but $22.5 million is.

I also found a very compelling argument regarding the voluntarily labeling, whole foods line of reasoning:



So there are not just 2 types of goods on the marketplace, GMO and non-GMO there are actually 4:

1. conventional unlabeled food
2. organic foods (which are by definition GMO-free)
3. voluntarily labeled GMO-free food.
4. voluntarily labeled GM food.

This law takes the first type off the market, restricting people's freedom of choice. These also happen to be the lowest cost choice in the market. So in a while this law is championed in the name of giving consumers greater choice through better information, it ironically restricts their choices rather than enhances it. Especially if you don't care about GMOs and are going to make your decision on price regardless, removing the lower cost item sans information takes away your preferred choice.

If most people don't care about GMOs enough to shop at Whole Foods or seek out the voluntarily GMO labeling program, then they probably don't care enough to pay higher taxes to subsidize the food costs for other people who do care. Shouldn't people who care about differentiating between GMO and non-GMO food be the ones to bear the full cost of differentiating between the two?

We are living longer and cancer rates have dropped since GMO foods were introduced

Direct correlation, too, I'm sure.

No, it ISN'T breeding, Nate. Breeding is when you have your lab fu.ck a dachsund. Genetic engineering is taking genes from an earthworm and putting them in a dachsund. Those aren't the same thing in my book.

hang around, you might learn something...

This is the sort of unimaginable thread that happens when Hank has his eyes set on a post count and nate has some really potent weed. Sort of like the perfect storm.

plants arent mammals...

JTFC ladies, it is safe to say that the science on whether GMOs are bad for you is unsettled. You are letting this distract you from the topic. You already have the right to choose to eat more expensive labeled GMO-free products, yet most people don't make this choice. If you go to the regular grocery store and buy any processed foods you have to know they likely have GMOs in them. This isn't about informing the consumer, this is about making GM foods more expensive because a small minority has a fetish about what they eat.

Yeah, DDT (a synthetic compound manufactured to kill mosquitoes and other pests) is just like a GMO seed.

do you know what dihydrogen monoxide even is?

dihydrogen monoxide it's on the label what does it tell you?

I can't believe I read this whole thing.

Beer Busch Light Can

Beer is just one of those 'feel good' beverages with little or no nutritional value.

Beer has food value. Food has no beer value.

Go Red Sox,
cds

The referrendum, while it had good intentions, was flawed as written, and this issue needs to be addressed on a national level, not a state or county level.