Pesticides and food: It’s not a black and white issue

Special 6-part series starting on

FIRST ARTICLE: Has pesticide use decreased over the last 40 years?

GLP’s Jon Entine talks to Ray Bowman on fallout from Oregon, Colorado GMO label votes

| | November 10, 2014

Oregon and Colorado both recently rejected mandatory GMO labeling while a measure narrowly passed on the island of Maui to ban biotech production and research. Jon Entine from the Genetic Literacy Project joins Ray Bowman on Food and Farm to discuss the implications of these votes.

Ray also interviewed two other commentators:

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

6 thoughts on “GLP’s Jon Entine talks to Ray Bowman on fallout from Oregon, Colorado GMO label votes”

  1. Good interview! Jon articulates it very well. People started to realize that slogan “We just want to know what’s in our food” really meant “We’re paranoid and expect the gub’mint to support our paranoia with woo-woo labels. Oh, and by the way, we want the gub’mint to give a competitive advantage to organic.”

    [NOTE: anytime proponents use the word “just,” as in “We just want….”, it’s a clue that there’s a lot more complexity involved.]

    Also, in Colorado that’s a strong farm state, people support local farmers. They understood how the labeling would have hurt farmers with unrealistic separation (100% separation) requirements.

    • Quite right Judy. The organic activists’ plan is two-pronged:

      FIRST, strangle modern agriculture with useless regulations and GMO labelling. SECOND, demand more and more tax subsidies for “organic” farming.

      Sooner or later, organic agriculture will become competitive with modern agriculture, and we’ll all go back in time to the wonderful world of frugality our great-great grandparents enjoyed.

  2. It is shocking to hear how arrogant and biased your assessment of the situation is.
    You site the failure of referendums and GMO moratorium to the educating of voters as they become aware of economical implications -while ignoring the propaganda and media spending of the opposition to the bill.
    Next you put a dollar amount on “free advertising” attributed to social media and activism and dismiss the 20 to 1 spending of pro GMO and co-opting of the scientific community.
    You confuse GM methods as if they are all the same as seed selection and credit this to “science”, forcing those who are pro-science to be pro gmo.
    You leave out the important topic of food patents and the implications of a handful of corporations controlling the food of the planet.
    Your false arguments and bias are a symptom of a much larger causation, one that is not in alignment with a greater community value system that serves the people and the environment.
    Reductio ad absurdum.

    • Please do not confuse plant patenting and plant biotechnology. The Plant Protection Act became law in 1930 and the Plant Variety Protection Act was signed in 1070. Germplasm developers could patent their materials (and some did) long before biotechnology.

  3. An excellent interview Jon! I was most pleased that you didn’t shy away from mentioning the organic industry. Not only are they behind these GMO labelling campaigns, they are the sine qua non of all opposition to the science of genetic engineering.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend