The Hawaii State Department of Agriculture conducted an impromptu meeting to allow biotech to ‘field test’ genetically modified bananas. This is of great concern to the people of Hawaii, and no public notice was made of the meeting until very recently. UH received a $1.5 million research grant from the US federal government to develop a GMO banana variety, even though Hawaii residents have made it very clear they oppose GM crops.
Hector Valenzuela of the Dept. of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences, CTAHR, UH-Manoa has explained that even though bananas propagate asexually, widespread contamination is likely to occur in the state through people sharing propagating materials – called suckers or keikis – with friends, or neighbors.
The experience with the GMO Rainbow papaya shows that UH and GMO papaya farmers have been incapable of containing GMOs within the boundary of their farms resulting in the widespread contamination of non-GMO areas throughout the state.
Research needs to be conducted to determine potential health, environmental, economic, and social impacts from the release of a GMO banana variety in Hawaii, yet the biotech industry is set to unleash the GM banana variety without any of this.
Little or no research has been conducted by UH to find alternative ecologically-based, low input, practices to manage the bunchy top virus in Hawaii.
IslandBreath reports that they are trying to ‘sneak’ the GM banana.
Sources:
What utter unbridled nonsense. I just love how blatantly biased this author is, just assuming that material from a UNIVERSITY TEST PLOT is going to be spread by farmers sharing materials. Really reaching. Pretty desperate.
I just love how, neither you or Stinky, have applied any form of scientific knowledge or methodology in your responses.
Pure plain and simple activist attack tactics.
Keep up the good work.
It doesn’t take any specialized knowledge to recognize bias, but it does require objectivity.
The science is there and the concerns are warranted.
So attacking is the new scientific method?
What concerns specifically? Which studies (provide citation) support these concerns? If you make a positive claim, then you have a burden of proof. Expect people to hold you to it.
You made initial allegations claiming the author is biased and now your waving off potential concerns that are stated within the article?
How does a university test plot specifically differ from a non university plot?
How would another version of monoculture benefit the general population of the sensitive eco structure contained within Hawaii?
Wouldn’t further establishing the agriculture diversity be more beneficial?
Could a corporation profit by encouraging crop diversity and diversity research, or is this being considered GMO specific as the only way to profit or research?
Papaya farmers have been incapable of containing their crops within the boundary of their farms. Isn’t this relevant, Who is the responsible party for keeping crops from wandering, if not the industrial farmers?
I removed and replaced the GMO, since all crops can wander.
Wouldn’t answering these questions serve the general public to a greater degree, than blindly making claims of author bias?
You made initial allegations claiming the author is biased and now your waving off potential concerns that are stated within the article?
Yes. The concerns raised by the author are completely baseless. The wording of the article is prejudicial and gives a distinct impression of bias.
How does a university test plot specifically differ from a non university plot?
It’s not open to the public and there certainly wouldn’t be any sharing of materials from the plot with the public. Thus, the concerns raised in the article (i.e. spread of GM bananas by sharing of plant materials between farmers) are completely baseless as they have no relevance.
How would another version of monoculture benefit the general population of the sensitive eco structure contained within Hawaii?
Monoculture farming is not unique to GM crops. I have no idea what your point is.
Wouldn’t further establishing the agriculture diversity be more beneficial?
Perhaps. It depends on how benefit is being measured.
Could a corporation profit by encouraging crop diversity and diversity research, or is this being considered GMO specific as the only way to profit or research?
Sure. Breeding by genotyping (which is non-GMO) is already being done by large companies.
Papaya farmers have been incapable of containing their crops within the boundary of their farms. Isn’t this relevant
No. Bananas are reproduced asexually whereas papayas reproduce sexually.
Wouldn’t answering these questions serve the general public to a greater degree, than blindly making claims of author bias?
Why not do both? I’ve answered your questions and I am pointing out that the author is a terrible source for information as she does not provide an objective perspective of the subject.
From the above article,
This month, our government has broken the law and is trying to sneak GMO
Bananas into our state for testing without appropriately informing
the public as prescribed by law so as not to give the public a chance
to give their opinion on the matter.
THE TALKING POINTS:
FAILING TO PUBLICLY NOTICE AGENDA: (Notify the public)
This meeting was not publicly noticed on the website of the Hawaii Dept of Agriculture (HDOA) 6 days prior, and is in violation of the Sunshine Law.
This agenda includes an administrative rule change, which was not properly noticed 30 days prior on the Lt. Governor’s website, as required by law.
This meeting is a clear violation of the Sunshine Laws and must be canceled, rescheduled and properly noticed as required by law.
Sunshine law
Declaration of policy and intent. In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power.
It is the intent of this
part to protect the people’s right to know;
It is apparent that the people’s of the Great State of Hawaii are facing a violation of their States Constitutional Rights.
So Christina is biased because she promotes the recognition of the rights of the People?
I’m not aware of public consent being required for test plots managed by universities. Please show me which law requires this.
LMAO, I just did and the clues were included in the article.
Your attacking the author because she’s making a difference, ie agenda driven attacks.
Members of political parties, well funded activists, attempt to frame issues in a way that makes a solution favoring their own political leaning appear as the most appropriate course of action for the situation at hand.
Moreover, because the working class own no mass
communications media, they are overwhelmed by the dominant class’s
cultural hegemony, and, because they have no intellectuals of their own, they adopt the imposed socially dominant’s worldview, which thus constitutes a false
consciousness about their own economic exploitation by the strata of
the upper classes; with that false awareness the working class lose
their social and political, economic and cultural independence as a
social class.
The science I’m referring to is behavioral/social/political science.
The questions that you answered, though in a rather clumsy fashion, were used to determine your psychological classification. I’m still doing some studies into these sciences, but they were crafted well enough to allow me further analytical comparisons.
Your not aware of public consent or the peoples rights in any fashion, because your in group is denying all rights for the out group.
You think this author is “making a difference”? That’s funny.
I left` my desk` `job` and now` I `get` paid` $85` every` h. …Wonder` how? I` freelance` `online!` My` old` job` was` making` me `unhappy` ,so I chose to take my chance on something` new… 2 years` after`…I say it was the smartest` decision i ever` made!` Let` me show you what` i` do…go and check` this “websiteLINK“on my` `Proffile!` for `detailed` `info`
+aqsdasdsa
Yes, because your here attacking her on a personal level…
When social institutions require control and obedience, it is not only to
protect cultural hegemony, but rather an admission that the
foundation of that hegemony must not be questioned, because it is
illegitimate, an institutional violation of social ethics and
constitutionality.
Pointing out that someone is factually wrong is not a personal attack. If that is what you think a personal attack is you must get “personally attacked” a lot 😛
She reported, that doesn’t make her factually wrong. What facts does she have wrong?
That makes you factually wrong, for attacking her for copying and linking the source materials and you not reading them, not to mention your again denying the Rights of the People of Hawaii. What does science have to do with Politics? You selected portions of the report to support your agenda, and used your perceptions to focus your attack. Is that the scientific method you are operating by, selecting your methods to ensure the outcome supports your mindset?
Because you say a university’s test plot is not open to the public, doesn’t make it some magically secure environment, that was an utterly stupid declaration. That is a simple observable fact.
Should we discuss some of the destruction and vandalism of research sites, do you think there might be any dangers considered for the students or even the General Public? Or it’s magically secure, because the science of security is conclusive, no one will be hurt by any subversive activities. Would you be willing to take the full responsibility for the site and it’s safety, since it is magically the most secure place in the world because you say so.
Read the Constitution and the States constitution.
If the Citizens of Hawaii hold the council to their mandated rules in respect to their rights, your saying the people are wrong and they don’t have right in this decision.
I already posted the portions of the Law and the People have the right to question and demand the local officials follow the Law, RIGHTS.
Pro GMO = Anti-Peoples rights?
As far as I have observed, yes I would consider that a fact.
What facts does she have wrong?
Her claim that “widespread contamination is likely to occur in the state through people sharing propagating materials – called suckers or keikis – with friends, or neighbors” is baseless because these this field test is being not being run by the public. There is no rational basis to expect the people growing these experimental bananas to share plant materials with local farmers.
Should we discuss some of the destruction and vandalism of research sites
Sure. In fact, such actions by anti-GMO radicals increases the risk of spreading the plant material due to the presence of people on the test fields. These people may inadvertently take GM plant materials with them from the site. Their actions are reckless and illegal.
Her claim came from the linked site, sharing information. Biased attack.
You forgot something there security expert,
Should we discuss some of the destruction and vandalism of research
sites, do you think there might be any dangers considered for the
students or even the General Public? Or it’s magically secure, because
the science of security is conclusive, no one will be hurt by any
subversive activities. Would you be willing to take the full
responsibility for the site and it’s safety, since it is magically the
most secure place in the world because you say so.
At least make an attempt to draw some simple conclusions from a scenario based risk mitigation standard.
Your comment contradicted itself…
And it’s being funded by the public, that would give them the right to demand inquiry and civil forum and the right to deny the program.
‘I just love how blatantly biased this author is” I LOVE IT!!!!!!
Love how blatantly biased you are as well!
“even though Hawaii residents have made it very clear they oppose GM crops” Chrissy makes this sound like an open and shut case. If this was true then why does Hawaii overwhelmingly plant gmo papaya? How do the biotech companies operate if the residents are ALL so against them? Who would work for them in that case? Just more examples of her poor writing skills.
LOL! GMO trolls are clueless!
Not as much as you obviously.
ohhh, nothing better than an angry GMO troll!
What part of the GMO papaya experiment didn’t you understand in the article. I don’t need to cite the definition of insanity to you, do I?