GMO Free Sonoma County :-: Please sign our online petition

https://img2u.info/img/g292aabc8.jpg

Dear Friends of Label GMOs and GMO Free Sonoma County

Please take time to visit our website and sign our online petition to prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of GMOs in our county. We will be presenting our ordinance and signatures to the supervisors to vote into law in Mid-May. Signatures are being gathered through tabling around the county and online.

Please share our website with your Facebook friends, on your website, and with your email lists.

Sign our petition here: www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com

Thank-you

Help Us Protect Sonoma County From GMO Contamination.....Protect our organic and conventional farms from cross contamination and increased spraying of herbicides and pesticides. Protect our children and their children. Protect the wildlife, our water supply, and all living things.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by guy:

https://img2u.info/img/g292aabc8.jpg

Dear Friends of Label GMOs and GMO Free Sonoma County

Please take time to...sign our online petition to prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of GMOs in our county. We will be presenting our ordinance and signatures to the supervisors to vote into law in Mid-May. Signatures are being gathered through tabling around the county and online.

Please share our website with your Facebook friends, on your website, and with your email lists.

Sign our petition here: www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com

Thank-you

Help Us Protect Sonoma County From GMO Contamination.....Protect our organic and conventional farms from cross contamination and increased spraying of herbicides and pesticides. Protect our children and their children. Protect the wildlife, our water supply, and all living things.

---

I was coming to post the same info today. Surprised not more folks are expressing 'gratitude' for this post?

Hey! Everyone ~ This is NOT a ballot issue, so ANY Sonoma county resident over age 18 may sign their support and spread the word. (You do not need to be a registered voter.) Please take 2 minutes of your life, to sign our letter to the supervisors to make life better for ALL of US and critters, too...

Marin, Mendocino, Trinity & Santa Cruz counties already prohibit growing GMO crops. We want Sonoma county GMO-Free!

FYI: There's already a farmer growing GMO corn for livestock feed near the Laguna de Santa Rosa in Sebastopol (a unique wetlands, floodplain and wildlife preserve). GMO-Free is gently working on educating him.

Corn is pollinated by WIND. And that pollen is carried for miles...meaning any of you home gardeners and other folks, who grow corn are in danger of cross pollination.

GMO alfalfa is another crop, which if planted in Sonoma county will endanger organic livestock production and the health of animals and wildlife who depend on alfalfa.


Preserve our health, our local resources & wildlife, and our organic agriculture!

Thanks for your concern and advocacy,

Cynthe

www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mudwoman:

Surprised not more folks are expressing 'gratitude' for this post?
www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com

---

Well, it is the least one can do; by that I mean it is literally (proper use of the word) the LEAST you can do. It's hard to image any action less effective than signing an online petition. Maybe commenting on a blog post, but no, I think signing an online petition is still doing less.

Regarding a lack of more gratitude for these GMO FREE Sonoma County posts: Maybe people are "burned out" on clicking the gratitude button, like they're tired of having hungry people need food donations. It can all be just too much, and they may need a diversion from all of this "bad news". :thinking:

Starbucks anyone? Where's Dixon when we need him? Is he o.k.?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Well, it is the least one can do; by that I mean it is literally (proper use of the word) the LEAST you can do. It's hard to image any action less effective than signing an online petition. Maybe commenting on a blog post, but no, I think signing an online petition is still doing less.

---

Spam1 ~ I'm glad you made this comment. Hadn't even occurred to me that one might assume the on-line form carried no weight. Actually, this on-line petition is not simply symbolic as you may have assumed. It will be used as 'real' documentation and given to each of our Sonoma county supervisors informing them Sonoma county residents want our county to be GMO-Free.

Obviously, the reason for presenting the petition in an on-line format is to make it as easy as possible for residents to voice their preferences...IF one wants a GMO Free county. Very convenient in our busy lives. Much easier than walking one's neighborhood door-to-door OR recruiting and coordinating hundreds of volunteers as we did for YES! onProp37.

It's also simple for GMO-Free advocates to share the petition link with their family and friends in Sonoma county to grow the GMO-Free sphere of influence. So....those of you who would like to see a GMO-Free Sonoma county, please spread the word and share the on-line petition link.

For those of you, who prefer gathering signatures on paper....we have those forms, too. Go to www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com and sign up as a volunteer. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Regarding a lack of more gratitude for these GMO FREE Sonoma County posts: Maybe people are "burned out" on clicking the gratitude button, like they're tired of having hungry people need food donations. It can all be just too much, and they may need a diversion from all of this "bad news". :thinking:

Starbucks anyone? Where's Dixon when we need him? Is he o.k.?

---

Shandi ~ You're completely right! Burn-out is a HUGE problem for each of us...especially for volunteer advocates attempting to budge (nudge) the entrenched status quo.

From my observations, I'm sure it's a planned, intentional 'social engineering' effect...overwhelming thinking citizens with too much input from various sources, with too many serious concerns/causes, dividing our loyalties, defeating grassroots political efforts with polished TV & radio ads (even containing blatant disinformation), exhausting all of us...resulting in citizens' lethargy & inaction.

My approach is to set priorities, striving to keep my life in balance. Choosing which causes seem most important and most pertinent to the community I live in...(whether I define that community as Sonoma county, the USA, or the world); the environment; and especially to generations that follow. Labeling GMO/GE foods, NOT fluoridating Sonoma county's water, and nuclear radiation toxicity are all on the top of my list. As is feeling and expressing gratitude.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Where's Dixon when we need him?

---

Uh...need me for what? To click on the Gratitude button? It's true that I tend to be pretty generous with the Gratitudes, having given out 3,456 of them in the last few years according to the counter on my profile page, but I'm not Gratituding the "GMO-Free" posts--just because I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the issue.

Quote:

---

Is he o.k.?

---

Thanks for asking, Sandy. I'm experiencing extreme financial stress that threatens my current housing and is causing me to have to prioritize job-hunting more and do less ranting on Wacco. I'm mindful of the fact that I've promised a couple of folks that I'll respond to specific posts of theirs, and will keep that promise one of these days when I get to it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Well, it is the least one can do; by that I mean it is literally (proper use of the word) the LEAST you can do. It's hard to image any action less effective than signing an online petition. Maybe commenting on a blog post, but no, I think signing an online petition is still doing less.

---

Not your typical online petition. The county supervisors require 20,000 signatures by the end of the month to put it on the agenda. This is actually huge folks. Protect our seed diversity and ability to grow food that doesn't have to pay royalties to biotech.

Sign our petition here: www.GMOFreeSonomaCounty.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by [B:

Where's Dixon ? Is he o.k.?[/B]

---

Dixon is more than Okay... he's cool!\

dixon is the scrabble god!!

For those who aren't sure where they stand on the issue or want more information, come to Songbird Community Healing Center on Friday, May 2 for our Songbird Friday Flock night where we will be screening the film Genetic Roulette.

I believe that GMO's are likely a cause to many modern health issues, and that proper care in their use is necessary. They should be labeled, and the consumer should be given the knowledge to make an informed choice.

However...

A ban on GMOs is as short sighted as believing all GMOs are safe.

First off, there's no way to prevent them at this point. There's likely wild GMO plants or direct descendents growing randomly throughout the county already. They are now a permanent part of our modern ecosystem (regardless of engineering to prevent procreation).

More importantly...Not all GMOs are going to be a problem to public health or environment. What we need are proper studies (on each new species created) on what is being grown, what impact it will have on it's environment, and what impact it will have on the food chain.

Label GMO's, and sponsor proper testing of their integration into our ecosystem. Don't just blindly ban a new technology because it's not 100% understood.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

Don't just blindly ban a new technology because it's not 100% understood.

---

I agree with you, ChefJayTay - for the most part. However, there are certain "pox" that should not be unleashed into the world until they ARE understood. GMO's would fall under that category, in my humble opinion...

It doesn't seem like you actually read the ordinance. It isn't a complete ban blindly applied. It's contamination prevention. Contained experiments are not included in the ban.C

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

I believe that GMO's are likely a cause to many modern health issues, and that proper care in their use is necessary. They should be labeled, and the consumer should be given the knowledge to make an informed choice.

However...

A ban on GMOs is as short sighted as believing all GMOs are safe.

First off, there's no way to prevent them at this point. There's likely wild GMO plants or direct descendents growing randomly throughout the county already. They are now a permanent part of our modern ecosystem (regardless of engineering to prevent procreation).

More importantly...Not all GMOs are going to be a problem to public health or environment. What we need are proper studies (on each new species created) on what is being grown, what impact it will have on it's environment, and what impact it will have on the food chain.

Label GMO's, and sponsor proper testing of their integration into our ecosystem. Don't just blindly ban a new technology because it's not 100% understood.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Seabaz:

It doesn't seem like you actually read the ordinance. It isn't a complete ban blindly applied. It's contamination prevention. Contained experiments are not included in the ban.C

---

The ability to test GMOs in a sealed environment, with no stated path to implementation and no stated consideration for what is safe or not, is nothing but a political consideration. The ordinance would have to be modified for ANY GMO to be accepted for public use. It is a blanket ban on GMOs.

Again, please read my first post on my thoughts on GMOs before pegging me as some supporter of Monsanto or something. I just don't believe ALL GMOs deserve banning in the blind. It's a technology, and technologies can be used for both good an bad. I also think it's silly to think a ban will be successfully implemented when GMO seeds have been publicly sold for ~20 years.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

The ability to test GMOs in a sealed environment, with no stated path to implementation and no stated consideration for what is safe or not, is nothing but a political consideration. The ordinance would have to be modified for ANY GMO to be accepted for public use. It is a blanket ban on GMOs.

Again, please read my first post on my thoughts on GMOs before pegging me as some supporter of Monsanto or something. I just don't believe ALL GMOs deserve banning in the blind. It's a technology, and technologies can be used for both good an bad. I also think it's silly to think a ban will be successfully implemented when GMO seeds have been publicly sold for ~20 years.

---

Here is some food for thought:
They say that GM crops:

https://www.organicconsumers.org/ima...mage_150px.jpg

• Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
• Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
• Are strictly regulated for safety
• Increase crop yields
• Reduce pesticide use
• Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
• Bring economic benefits
• Benefit the environment
• Can help solve problems caused by climate change
• Reduce energy use
• Will help feed the world.

https://www.organicconsumers.org/ima...tractor140.jpgHowever, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:

• Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
• Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
• Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
• Do not increase yield potential
• Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
• Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant "superweeds", compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
• Have mixed economic effects
• Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
• Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
• Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
• Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes - poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist.Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by The"A"Team:

Here is some food for thought:
They say that GM crops:
Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist.Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

---

This is just the short sightedness I am speaking about. You do know GMOs are not just related to food and agribusiness correct? GMOs are effecting MANY industries. Grown medicines (already in use!), energy production, building materials, clothing...it's a long list. They need to be studied, and it's not something we should be jumping into blind, but blindly banning the technology (with no paths for implementation of good uses) does not solve anything either.

The problem is that we HAVE jumped into the GMO pandora's box BLINDLY. Until sensible regulations are put in place, GMO's need to be banned.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:

This is just the short sightedness I am speaking about. You do know GMOs are not just related to food and agribusiness correct? GMOs are effecting MANY industries. Grown medicines (already in use!), energy production, building materials, clothing...it's a long list. They need to be studied, and it's not something we should be jumping into blind, but blindly banning the technology (with no paths for implementation of good uses) does not solve anything either.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by joehogan:

The problem is that we HAVE jumped into the GMO pandora's box BLINDLY.

---

as the punchline to an old Lone Ranger joke goes, "who's we??"
that's pretty dismissive of the ethics or intelligence of the researchers who are doing this work. If you're going to go by characatures you might as well accept one for yourself as the primitive who rejects science as evil wizardry. Just because Monsanto et al. are frequently involved in questionable (at best) business practices doesn't give anyone the right to smear a whole branch of technology.

The USA has pretty much jumped into the Pandora’s box of GMO’s (under strong political pressure from Monsanto and other chemical corporations) It would be impossible to smear GMO’s, since not enough is known about them to determine their usefulness compared to their dangers. Vast swaths of USA farmland are in production and if there is a problem, it will be nigh to impossible to remedy it. Research in a laboratory is fine as long as it’s controlled. The countries who have rejected GMO’s in open fields are still experimenting in closed laboratories. But they don’t want to destroy their farmlands. They are doing their due diligence. The USA is under the thumb of the giant corporations who care about profits more than safety.