Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (103308)	5/5/2005 9:30:59 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Grainne, Free Range Beef: pbase.com c

To: Grainne who wrote (103308)	5/5/2005 10:04:19 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Grainne, It's about time and it's about time for me to speak up about these things which I am against, factory farms, GMO, etc.. THIS WEEK´S TOP ARTICLES FRom the 'Capital Press' an ag paper we get... Just a thought to read the the 'Capital Press' once in awhile. They give both sides.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GMO pollution bill discussed By ALI BAY California Staff Writer abay@capitalpress.com SACRAMENTO – Assembly agriculture leaders this week discussed a bill that would make manufacturers of genetically engineered crops responsible for any contamination caused by their products in California. Organic grower organizations and anti-biotechnology groups support the Food Integrity and Farmer Protection Act, which would give producers, grain and seed cleaners, handlers and processors the right to sue if they are injured by the release, and subsequent contamination, of a genetically modified organism. “We feel that organic producers need to be protected from potential contamination by GM crops,” said Peggy Miars, president of the California Certified Organic Farmers, an organic certifier and trade association based in Santa Cruz. Assembly Bill 984, authored by Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, is similar to a bill that’s successfully made its way through the Vermont Legislature this spring. That proposed legislation would also hold biotechnology corporations liable for the unintended contamination of conventional or organic crops by genetically engineered plant materials. Although few genetically modified crops are grown commercially in California, anti-biotechnology groups believe the problem of contamination is soon to arrive in the Golden State. “This isn’t a problem – yet,” said Rebecca Spector, the West Coast director for the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco that is pushing to regulate genetic engineered corps. “Farmers nationally have suffered economic losses from unintentional contamination of their crops with (genetically engineered) materials,” she said. “It’s happened with corn growers and soybean growers. Farmers are liable for those losses ... even when it’s not their fault.” Most recently, Syngenta announced that it had mistakenly sold a kind of genetically modified corn seed to U.S. farmers that wasn’t meant for the human food supply. Although both Syngenta and the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the mistake posed no public health risk, the company was fined $375,000 for its error, and some foreign buyers reacted by asking for proof that U.S. animal feed contains no genetically engineered corn. This legislation would shift the economic burden of contamination to the manufacturer entirely, said Spector. “This is a proactive bill,” she said. “We know that (contamination) is happening across the country and we want to protect our farmers before it comes to California.” Organic food processors testified before lawmakers on April 27, expressing concerns about contamination. “Our customers expect that our products are grown and processed without genetically engineered material,” said Nell Newman, the founder of Newman’s Own Organics, a division of Newman’s Own, founded by Hollywood legend Paul Newman. “It would be devastating if our products were unintentionally contaminated with GE.” Spector said many organic food manufacturers now test their bulk ingredients for GMOs. If a grower is faced with unintentional contamination, that farmer could stand to lose a lot of money – and an important market. “A lot of organic processors have zero tolerance for GMO content,” she said. In the past year California has been a sort of testing ground for the general acceptance of genetically modified crops. Several counties have issued bans on the production of genetically modified foods, stemming from a successful campaign in Mendocino. In addition, the rice industry last year worked out a protocol that would have allowed Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience to grow a pharmaceutical rice crop in Southern California. The controversial plan was met with mixed emotions from rice growers, especially after a Japanese retailer association said it would refuse any rice from the Golden State if it allowed the cultivation of a genetically modified crop. Ventria has since announced its plans to grow its commercial pharmaceutical rice crop in Missouri and not California. Both the California Farm Bureau Association and the Western Plant Health Association, groups that have advocated the benefits of biotechnology for farmers, said they haven’t taken a position for or against the proposed legislation. Ali Bay is based in Davis, Calif. Her e-mail address is abay@capitalpress.com. capitalpress.info