Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Aaron Smethurst
Arlington, VA
Recent Activity
-
Aaron commented on the article |Only regressive idiots and Luddites still oppose use of biotechnology in agriculture. True progressives support PROGRESS.
-
Aaron commented on the article |Hi Jerry, actually, I know EVERYTHING about "organics," thanks for asking. It's funny then that you would call my post ignorant without first checking with me. I'd be happy to bring you up to speed though; I like to raise awareness. First, "organic" is a production methods not a product, as you assert. Second, I know that organic methods are responsible for the deaths of millions of people indirectly and more recently dozens in Europe due to an outbreak of e. coli (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369142982006926.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Third, organic pesticides include heavy metals such as copper sulfate, copper hydroxide, cuprous oxide, copper oxychloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_pesticide).
Commercial production agricultural land, whether organic or not should be allowed a period of detoxification and renewal before humans use it for recreational purposes.
-
Aaron commented on the article |
Are they crazy!? You cant turn an ORGANIC farm into a place where children will play; what if they get e. coli or are exposed to organic pesticides! Someone please think of the children! Turn it into a parking lot.
-
Aaron commented on the article |It's better than God playing God.
-
Aaron commented on the article |
Hooray for full deregulation, science and sanity carry the day! I am proud to live in a country which is not ruled by ideological tyrants, but rather science and prudent public policy. The USDA listened to the people (and their elected representatives) and made the right choice. Good job USDA!
-
Aaron commented on the article |Galen, I'm sorry, but Robert is right about the use of technology in breeding. It is interesting that the general public has had their focus put on biotechnology as some weird science, but completely ignores "traditional" mutation processes like mutagenesis. As Robert points out, even most "organic" famers are using these mutagenesis seeds. I would really be interested to see a poll of how many Americans want labels for "foods created through mutagenesis." And similarly, how many of you would be willing to give your kids vegetables created through somaclonal variation? I suspect you would see numbers very similar to those opposing GMOs. Ignorance breeds fear and misconceptions.
There will be a time when we look back on the GMO debate as incredulously as we do on the nuclear power debate now. Some of us have, in the name of what they think is good, been trying to hinder technology which would create the sustainable goals they are seeking. I recommend Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto by Stewart Brand (http://amzn.com/0670021210)
-
Aaron commented on the article |
The option of not de-regulating the crop at all is not really an option. The USDA doesn't have the authority to do so under the Plant Health Act which is the current law debated right now. Whole Foods is pragmatic, they know a lot about selling food, which is why they sell both conventional and organic. They let consumers decide what they want to buy and sell it to them. It's the American way. Let the market decide unless there is some health and safety risk to the public, which there is not. Organic growers may have to pay more to ensure that they keep their crops organic, but the market allows them to pass these costs on to consumer willing to pay for it. Again, this would be easier if we just allowed for biotechnology use under organic methods.
-
Aaron commented on the article |Sarah, your reporting on this issue sounds rather partisan. I am a Democrat and went to the U.S. House of Representatives Public Forum on this issue this morning, and every person in that room, Democrat, Republican and your Aunt Betty, agreed on the safety, and effectiveness of GM Crops, including alfalfa. There are no safety issues for human, plant or the environment, the only issue is whether organic method farmers should shoulder the burden of staying certified to the level of 0% tolerance or whether conventional/GM farmers should have to be the stewards.
As a reminder, organic is not a safety or health certification, but a marketing registration for a particular method of growing. Organic farmers use a method to demand a higher price, in the same way that an auto dealer will tell you German engineering makes his/her brand more valuable to a brand-savy consumer.
The question of coexistance for me really brings up the question I eluded to in an earlier comment: what's the basis for having GM outside of organic standards in the first place? (most) Farmers and consumers seem fine eating organic food created through mutagenesis, so why not biotech? This issue was also raised by Congressman Conaway from Texas. When will the USDA re-evaluate the organic standards and get us on the right foot for a truly sustainable agriculture in America.
-
Aaron commented on the article |I have been eating (as have most of you) GMO food for longer than 2 weeks and I haven't died yet.
-
Aaron commented on the article |
Robert is right. EVERY country in the world accepts the safety of GMOs. Only conspiracy theorists in developed countries who have the excess food and time to posit otherwise. GMOs are one of the greenest technologies on the planet and now the progressive socialists (who used to be, like you folks, anti-GMO) are now saying that big companies should free up the IP rights on the seeds to make them MORE AVAILABLE to the developing world. Get with the times... if you want to be anti-corporate, be pro-GMO.
Impact
6 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|
|
Organizations
-
SOME0 Actions 0 Recruits -
Creative America1 Action 0 Recruits -
CARE1 Action 0 Recruits -
U.S. Campaign for Burma1 Action 0 Recruits -
ALBUQUERQUE ACADEMY0 Actions 0 Recruits
