24 votes

GMO growing banned in San Juan County, Washington

(NaturalNews) Election Day may not have turned out nationally as many people may have wished, but a number of local issues, from our perspective, did quite well, and one of them was a measure in San Juan County, Wash., to ban the growing of genetically modified crops.

According to local reports, Washington state residents passed Initiative Measure No. 2012-4, which bans the growth of GM foods. The language of the initiative makes it illegal to "propagate, cultivate, raise or grow plants, animals and other organisms which have been genetically modified" in San Juan County.

The measure still permits the growth of hybrid organisms and GMOs grown by healthcare providers and researchers only, as long as they are in secure, controlled environments.

The measure will affect mostly local farmers, who were largely supportive of it, according to local reports. The initiative; however, won't affect GMO products sold in local food stores.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.co...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank God that at least one state had the balls to demand

that this fraud on humanity be exposed!! Only an idiot would argue that it is Monsanto's right to poison the planet with US government protection and impunity.

A pendulum swings wide before it settles at plumb.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Quite well, from our perspective?

I have already criticized The Liberty Crier and Trevor Lyman on G+ for calling this a success. I'll say it here too.

More regulation of the free market is not a success, or even quite well, if you want free markets and liberties.

This kind of hypocrisy is why I have trouble ever associating myself with any liberty group. Eventually they throw their principles out the window for some personal issue. You cannot support a free market and liberty and ask for the government to ban something you disagree with.

Are there GMO issues? Yes. Do they need to be addressed? Yes. Should it be done through the spreading of truthful data? Yes. Should it be done by completely banning them outright? No!

It is the opposite of liberty, it is the opposite of freedom, and it is the opposite of a free market.

"Whenever you give power to politicians or bureaucrats, it will be used for what they want, not for what you want." Keep that in mind when this same process begins to be used to ban things you don't have a personal issue with. And when that happens, remember you said that it "did quite well." If I am there to see you complain, I will remind you of where you stood when we were at this turning point, and how that is the end result of your desired actions.

If by "our perspective" you mean Daily Paul, then perhaps I am in the wrong place.

deacon's picture

a free market?

how is it a free market with monsanto owning patents to plants?
how it is free when the same ones dictate regulations
with the use of the fed gov,for their own protections
how it is free when monsanto can sue the average farmer
for nor using their product?
how it is free when monsanto helps runs the gov,for their own
purposes?
to me it sounds just the opposite of free,but aided and abetted by the fed gov
how is it a free market when they poison the whole planet
and everything on it,and the fed gov keeps them from being liable?
if i am being poisoned i WANT to know
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

Well said. But, unlike you

Well said.

But, unlike you and the person below promoting enforcement of property rights -- enforcement the word to think about -- why not get the government and companies off the individual's back when he does what he wants with who wants to do with him? Why complicate matters: Why not employ techniques of reduction instead of techniques of addition? Which is to ask, why not reduce government, a reduction whose consequence on this issue is no government, big business or other party involvement in someone's life unless that person asks for that involvement?

Additionally, most people, say, 95-plus percent of people, respect other people's property. Sure, there is an instance here and there of property violation, but they're aberrations.

Why I ask the questions above is that although I advocate respect for property which consists of rights to them, I want to protect against courts and other sectors of government and big businesses and what they affect, society, behaving hyperactive about property. Those entities, particularly government and big business, feed off each other and because so they influence one another to operate in nothing but extremes. From all we have seen about government and big business which is government's sidekick (for the time being but could usurp government or is it vice versa?), likely they would be extreme on property rights.

As with all things in a centralized environment, the centrality affects them all. There's a difference, though, in the affects: degrees. I can see this issue, property rights, being taken to extremes where its employment is in the name of safety and respect while what's done is contrary to those words and, frankly, any other words. I want to prevent more of the same.

I say we give spontaneous order a try. Each of us does it daily, anyway. So, just reduce the centrality, then watch freedom, it'll flourish.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

The government should enforce property rights

If property rights were properly enforced then GMO's wouldn't exist. If Monsanto had to pay out for all the contamination of unintended crops they would be out of business.

Problem is Monsanto has been able to leverage government to turn property rights on its head. They have the ability to sue a farmer for damages if GMO's from their neighbor's farm end up cross breeding with their crops.

There really should be a campaign to restore strict property rights, that would have many additional benefits.

I agree, enforcing property rights is the right move.

But instead we want to go the other direction? You can't fight crony capitalism by limiting true capitalism.

Never mind that the assumption is that any kind of genetically modified agriculture is, or will always be, as problematic as what Monsanto has done.

Restore property rights, don't increase the weight of the government's boot.

Ah, very good, ...don't

Ah, very good, ...don't increase the weight of government's boot.

It looks as though you and I agree. How then might property rights hyperactivity, a government activity directly in dispatching its agents to a property or indirectly in laws and regulations, be avoided if something other than government reduction is to be done?

It seems avoidance of this hyperactivity requires nothing less than a small government. Your thoughts?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I disagree entirely... the

I disagree entirely... the closest thing to free market in today's world are black markets. Government lobbied, dependent, subsidized, bully markets are not free. That is the epitome of GMO industry.

You can quote whatever you want, and I agree with your general philosophy. I just happen to believe in States Rights and voluntary action. If a community wants to conjoin for something like this, who is loosing? Certainly not the farmers who voted for this... it's not our place to tell them what to do.

Is forcing them to allow people to grow GMO food in their community if they dont want it not force?

Down vote it, whatever... but it seems as if many individuals banter about states rights and then argue against them when they are put in place

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Regulation of all by the will of a majority = voluntary action?

I defend states' rights. I never once suggested a federal intrusion to prevent this (in fact, I would oppose it). I simply said that this should not be applauded by supporters of liberty and freedom.

In your defense of states' rights do you defend Massachussets healthcare mandate as a win for liberty? Are California's state taxes and redistribution systems a win for liberty? Is it a win for liberty that I couldn't buy alcohol on Election Day, can't have wine shipped to my home from out of state, or can't purchase fireworks?

A state's laws, while legally and constitutionally created, can harm liberty.

But if you want to call it a win for states' rights, then also call the GMO initiatives that were voted down a win.

I agree fully with your

I agree fully with your counter argument... in this particular case, I also fully believe that it helps liberty. It might be biased or inconsistent, but I think any sort of action to bring down the science experiment on the American Public known as GMO's is a good thing. I think these are hugely powerful conglomerates who destroy free market principals and only growing more powerful. I think it creates a rigged, dangerous food system that drives away community based agriculture. Not only are they ruining the American food system, they are working internationally to ensure under developed countries will NEVER develop and become dependent on their seeds.

I absolutely do not support a mandate of health care, nationally or a state level. I absolutely do no defend California's tax system or redistribution system. Your wine purchases from out of state or fireworks is NOT a win for liberty. I frankly don't appreciate you implying that I support all those as if its a blanketed decision, everything or none.

I believe that each issue should be evaluated individually. Yes, it might be against "free market principals" to ban GMO in this county, but the entire market is already operating against 'free market principals.' I think, in some cases, one must fight fire with fire.... just as our founding fathers used physical military force against Great Britain. In my opinion, I feel the American people should be at war with Monsanto and everyone connected in the corporate subsidized food system.

I'm entitled to have this opinion and I feel anything to bring down the Monopoly that consumes over 80% of our entire food system of GMOs is beneficial... so please over generalize my statements and act as if I support ALL state measures because I happent to disagree with you on this one issue.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Sometimes Principles are more important...

You see Weirman, removing Monsanto will do nothing. The company may cease to exist from one day to the other and it will do nothing to the system that allowed such a company to be created. Killing a dictator, even one such as Hitler, will not create freedom since the system that allowed the dictator to come to power is still in place. The system must be changed, and this requires that we stand by specific principles. Your accepting the use of force to prevent another from planting GMOs will only justify another person to add unwarranted wire taps to 'prevent' terrorism. Once you've established your principles, then stand by it even if you don't get your free cell phone, free healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. (most would agree that stealing is bad but are okay with taking other people's money to pay for this "free" stuff = thus no principles).

You want to end GMOs, continue shopping at Organic or non-GMO stores. Convince your friends. As a farmer that plants GMOs, I will tell you that I have to issues planting non-GMOs, but you and everyone else that wishes to have these non-GMOs will have to pay more. Unfortunately there aren't enough people willing to pay the extra cost so I can't justify planting more non-GMO.

"Your accepting the use of

"Your accepting the use of force to prevent another from planting GMOs will only justify another person to add unwarranted wire taps to 'prevent' terrorism. Once you've established your principles, then stand by it even if you don't get your free cell phone, free healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. (most would agree that stealing is bad but are okay with taking other people's money to pay for this "free" stuff = thus no principles).

I disagree 100%... I just wrote an entire response explaining my reasoning without sounding condescending, and you misunderstood it. I dont want free health care, food stamps, a free cell phone... I work and pay my own, to assume otherwise without any knowledge of who I am and what I believe is down right rude

I agree that Monsanto itself is not the only issue at hand, there are many agrichemical companies. But they are the biggest and most politically connected. I want to end corporate Ag GMO subsidies. I want parents to educate their children and friends with friends... discussion, awareness, and personal consumer choices should and will ultimately drive change. At no point did I say think a national ban would be good, nor did I even say I wanted this one in the first place... and philosophically I do disagree. I just wouldn't spend my time ending this sort of legislation from state measures. Just as Dr. Paul is philosophically opposed to social security and medicare, yet, if elected, he would've focused used his authority to end the wars, pardon non violent drug criminals, audit the fed, etc.

"You want to end GMOs, continue shopping at Organic or non-GMO stores. Convince your friends. As a farmer that plants GMOs, I will tell you that I have to issues planting non-GMOs, but you and everyone else that wishes to have these non-GMOs will have to pay more. Unfortunately there aren't enough people willing to pay the extra cost so I can't justify planting more non-GMO."

I will continue to shop wherever I think will be the most affordable for what I want. I am not a farmer, but I know many and live in farming area and grow my own food during the season. Most farmers I know suffer because of the prices of REAL FOOD based on the subsidies of GMO, that THEY DONT WANT TO GROW. I personally dont want to force anyone to grow or not grow anything. You evaded the topic to make this personal for some reason... while all I was saying is that, right or wrong, this county does have the right to put forth this legislation. I support that right...

and I must ask, you're a farmer who takes advantages of zero subsidies on a state or level?

GMO's are poison my friend... I as a consumer am terrified to go out to eat sometimes just because I am not sure what will be served. We as consumers don't know whats what... How is that a free market? The entire GMO market, if it were exist naturally without the assistance of the government would be totally okay under my book, I just dont think it would exist in the 1st place

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

So Don't Ban a Product, Ban Politicizing It.

First of all Weirman, my welfare comments were not directed at you but to a great percent of the USA population that will readily give up their principles and values to achieve a quick gain. I used it to relate to the GMO subject, that by prohibiting a person from utilizing their property as they please (if it does no harm to others) is against the principles of a free market or better yet, libertarianism. It was not meant to be personal.

As for me, a farmer, I don't farm in the USA so I don't accept any subsidies; I am against any government "help" of the economy.

Regardless if GMOs are poison or not, people choose to buy them. Now you make a good point that it is difficult to know what uses GMO and what doesn't, but the government isn't the solution to this problem; you are. Someone should start their own labeling company that certifies that products are NON-GMO. Whole foods did this with organics and the same can be done with non-GMOs. It would be a very lucrative business venture by the looks of it. This would be a free market solution and has a much higher chance of working out.

To make this a long one...without the increased demand for grains created by the Corn Ethanol Subsidies (about 50% of corn goes to ethanol in the USA, the largest producer of corn in the world), millions of hectares would be available for soybeans,wheat, etc. This would drive the price of food down dramatically and thus there would be less incentive to produce food using GMOs. GMOs are great for large scale, intense farming, something that MUST be done if we want to feed the world; or end ag subsidies and let the free market decide what should be produced.

What it comes down to is that any government interference out of the protection of life, liberty and property, is only detrimental.

People have a right to grow and eat what they want

Just because the state or local community can ban something doesn't mean they should. One can be a supporter of states rights and against the state imposing harsh restrictions on individual liberty, even if the states have the right to do it. This law uses the same logic as the soda size ban in New York City that so many complained about. If people think that GM food isn't unhealthy and want to grow/eat it they have the right to do so just like you have to right to eat organic food. This law will inhibit the right of individuals to utilize their private property in a way that they see fit.

Big government isn't the answer. If you want to get rid of GM food then educate people so they can make the decision of what they will eat and grow. You have no right to use violence and the force of government to impose your beliefs on what is healthy and what isn't. Replace the word GMO with saturated fat, sugar, cigarettes, marijuana, etc. and the logic of the argument calling for banning GM food is no different than the logic used by big government progressives that champion these local infringements on our liberty.

I agree philosophically...

I agree philosophically... but in the end, right or wrong, forcing a community to allow the use of GMO products is the same thing that you just mentioned. The soda ban is idiotic, it should be a parents choice to educate on such things... all in the meantime, Bloomberg doesn't question how that soda is made. Its over 60% corn syrup from GMO poison. Our entire fast food industry, grocery store chains, soda industry, ethanol industry, CAFO meat industry, etc. are 100% dependent on GMO products. We wouldn't have fast food if it wasn't for GMO because the business model is dependent on insanely cheap, low grade meat & corn sugar products, hence dollar menu. Its not economically feasible without the subsidies lowering prices for these monstrosities. You cannot have a free market without equal playing fields.

I personally dont think banning this is the right way, but I also do not feel it is "big government." I think its too easy to throw that around. Its a county in rural Washington where a network of farmers are protesting the use of GMO products by banning its use. I am sure these farmers were already not using GMO, but its a statement to the larger federal subsidy system that "we dont approve." Its a communities choice for something of this nature and I do believe that individual cases are different and deserve different treatment.

The state of Washington also used BIG GOVERNMENT to decriminalize cannabis and make recreational use for adults over 21 legal. That is a good thing.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Regulating VS Deregulating

Deregulating, or decriminalizing something is not using Big Government, as it is the removal of force. Banning GMO is the addition of force.

I am not defending GMO use or growing. I just feel that compromising your philosophical principles to get what you want is akin to making a deal with the devil in the hope of achieving good in the end.

In what instance has giving the government a power to do something ever ended in more liberty?

Same with DDT and Freon?

Bald eagles were going extinct, and the ozone was thinning. Prohibitions violated the free market? People should have educated themselves about eagles and DDT and voluntarily avoided it, so no government intervention was necessary?

How can companies that violate law and threaten the integrity of agriculture be defended as legitimate players in free markets?

Was a crime commited??

If a crime is committed, pollution or killing of someone's property, then simply send the case to a court house not the congress. There were laws already in place that says you cannot damage (pollute) someone else's property without just compensation. Well why is it necessary to add another law? The first one was never implemented and thus you got the improper use of DDT. I live in a country that DDT is okay, and we have no problems because we use it properly. There are many chemicals that are much more dangerous than DDT and less effective.

Your last question summarizes it quite well; if they are violating the law then they are to be prosecuted. Now the problem is that we have too many laws. The only laws that are really necessary are to protect your life, liberty and property. Upon any point that either of those three confronts with someone else's life, liberty and property, then a law should be in place to settle/prevent disputes. So in the case of GMOs, if someone's corn pollinates my conventional corn with a GMO gene, they have caused damage to my property. As for soybeans, they don't cross pollinate so there is no problem there.

DDT

As someone who had bed bugs, possibly brought into my home from work, I miss DDT and would trade my sucked blood for that of an eagle. The fact that I had an infant child made me care about the eagles that much less.

But hey, the heating treatment to kill the bed bugs killed a few snakes living around my foundation. Poor snakes.

DDT is GREAT THING for

DDT is GREAT THING for humanity.... how would like to be suffering from malaria? Sure, they overdid it back in the day... but it entirely eradicated malaria form the US. Rachel Carson's "silent spring" is disastrous to human freedom. Many of the species she wrote about have not gone extinct and are actually thriving, even with growing population and consumption rates.

Environmentalists in America, lobby to the African governments to get them to NOT use DDT, while people are suffering and dying from mosquito born diseases. Easy for us to say after we've already used it reaped its benefits. Talk about force.

The scientific community is largely in agreement that much smaller amounts of DDT can be used to reach the same goal in a controlled, evacuated spraying... similar to bug bomb on your home. Protects species and can dramatically help save people from dying painful deaths in underdeveloped countries such as Sudan, etc.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

If the companies were labeling GMO

voluntarily or involuntarily, this would happen in counties and states across the country. Currently, people don't know what their eating, and most don't understand what GE food is. It's difficult even to have a conversation. The county is wise to protect their agriculture. Washington State farmers enjoy strong market positions in many varieties. Their livelihoods are under direct threat from GMO contamination.

What is the Direct Threat??

Do you speak of cross pollination? Because soybeans don't cross pollinate. As for crops that do cross pollinate, it shouldn't be illegal to plant the GMO, but if it pollinates a neighbors non-gmo crop, they they should be held liable for the damages.

I'm sure a non pollinating GMO corn plant could be created and this could also be prevented.

LIBERTY2ME's picture

It seems to me the system

It seems to me the system just figured out to keep poisoning Americans and now financially hurt the farmers. It doesn't make sense to say, farmers can't grow GMO, but it's ok for the store's to sell it.
I believe in the bible it says, you know the end of the world is coming when the insane become the sane....we are there.

Think of it as "liberty blowback."

Had Monsanto not infected farms with their GMOs then blamed the farmer, perhaps this would not have happened.
In the end, people need to be educated away from the desire to grow these harmful poisons and to grow their own food. But I am amused by this, even if I really don't like the government telling people what they can and cannot grow.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Good for them. The way we are

Good for them. The way we are going with all the GM food hitting the market we will all unknowingly turn into cannibals if it is not controlled. Imagine GM cows with human genes. Believe it or not, it is my understanding, human genes are being used in some animal research projects.

Legalizing Liberty

Not exactly seeing how this is at all legalizing liberty(referring to your username). This would be the opposite in regards to liberty it is limiting what a farmer can do. The local farmers were largely in agreement, similar to healthcare providers enjoying Obamacare. Yes many industries to prefer more regulation. You bet a farmer doesn't want his competition to grow something that is more resistant to pests and drought as his is.

I am all for the market deciding to label GMO food, similar to organic food and they can reach their own standards. I also disagree with any sort of patent infringement lawsuits that companies go after for seed dispersal. But again making more things illegal is not helping liberty in anyway.

The small, farmers who are

The small, farmers who are you are referring DO NOT grow GMO food... only corporate subsidized farms grow GMO food, its mostly corn and soy. GMO does not make it more resistant to pests, etc, like you claimed. Thats what pesticides do.... this makes no claim that it is forcing farmers to grow organic. They volunteered and gathered together to say we dont want the risk of this poison infecting our crops, and risk getting sued. It seems as if everyone here has issues with local municipal decisions. I'm not saying they are all good... but thats for the local communities who know their area best to decide and learn from, good and bad.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

So, If My Child Has Had Gene Therapy

I can't feed him?

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

You misunderstood

Farmers are prohibited from growing GE crops in the county.