Say it ain’t so, Daily Camera.

Via Waylon Lewis
on Dec 19, 2011
get elephant's newsletter

Say it ain’t so, Daily Camera. You’re a paper I’ve grown up with and respected through the years, even when I disagreed with you. Say it ain’t so, Erika Stutzman, for the editorial board.”

Click here to read the Camera’s endorsement of GMOs on taxpayer-funded Open Space/Public Lands.

To read the only locally-owned paper on the same question, click here.

“Co-existence,” when one takes over the other, not the other way around? When one sues farmers when seeds “coexist”? Shame on the Camera. This has nothing to do with PC. This has to do with real food vs. patented, dumbed-down food addicted to for-profit pesticides.

This fight isn’t just a case of David (local) vs. Goliath (Monsanto & Friends).  It’s also a case of local citizens vs. out-of-state monied interests—interests who, last week, showed they’re hyper-organized, renting out a room next door to the final public hearing and showing up hours early, signing up for all the early slots so the many anti-GMOers went home tired at 1130 or whatever.

This is a great story. This is not a local story, anymore. Monsanto (like Xcel) has realized this could be a major international story—a pricey precedent.

I respect Kevin, publisher at the Camera, to the incredibly small extent that I know him. I respect everyone I’ve known there, over the years. Growing up, my next door neighbor was Bill Jordan, a longtime columnist. I still remember touring the Camera, in awe, back in the day, when I was attending Casey.

And so this editorial comes as a shock akin to betrayal.

What does Boulder stand for? Does the Camera still represent what we stand for? This is one of those moments when we stand up and be counted as a caring, careful city that goes about its business for the greater good and with our grandchildren’s future firmly in mind. That’s something Republicans and Democrats care about. Boulder’s mindful development as a city, since the 1960s, is the reason we now win all those awards and attract all those businesses—because Boulder is Boulder.

If the commissioners vote the wrong way, they too will have betrayed Boulder.

Let’s keep the pressure on the commissioners to do the right thing and vote people’s interests vs. out-of-state Corporation interests. ~ Waylon Lewis


Live in Boulder? Want to continue to show Ben Pearlman, Will Toor and Cindy Dominico how Boulder citizens feel about this question?

Click here and vote.


Bonus: two food-for-thought quotes from the Daily Camera’s comment section, where anti-GMO comments are getting thumbed down:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

—Edmund Burke


“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job.”

Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. “Playing God in the Garden” New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998.


About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.


9 Responses to “Say it ain’t so, Daily Camera.”

  1. melissa says:

    Love to see you speaking out for your city- I think these days we're all (hear me say, ME, when I say "all") too busy to comment or care about things we feel we have no power over… or unless it relates to us personally. But, what we tend to forget is that where we live, move and breath… even if the post doesn't say my name or "tag" me, our group or community personally, it still affects us and will affect our legacy.
    "This is one of those moments when we stand up and be counted as a caring, careful city that goes about its business for the greater good and with our grandchildren’s future firmly in mind. "
    Thanks for sharing your passion.

  2. Andy Acker says:

    Live to see this, too, Waylon, and support the cause. I am missing some context, however, because I am not familiar with what Mansanto is trying to do, or why the Daily Camera is implicated here (probably because I'm not living in Boulder). I'll do some research outside this editorial, though, but would have benefited from a paragraph summary of the overall situation.

  3. elephantjournal says:

    Andy, I linked to the Camera's endorsement of GMOs on public taxpayer-created Open Space…and to the prior blog that details the overall situation. Let us know what you think!

  4. elephantjournal says:

    Waylon Lewis “There is only one thing I will not concede: that it might be meaningless to strive in a good cause.” ~ Vaclav Havel.

    Another: "Miracles don't happen. Sweat happens. Effort happens. Thought happens. And it's up to us to help." ~ Isaac Asimov

    Tom Frascone
    I think people fear GMOs because they don't understand them. Like anything, its not a black or white issue. To say it should be only one way or the other is rather ignorant.

    People hear the word GMO and picture people in white lab coats, i…n a sterile lab, injecting neon liquids into produce and animals. They forget, or don't realize, that the majority of the foods we consume are historically GMO based on hundreds (or thousands) of years of selective farming/breeding – a process that began long before modern science knew anything about genetic coding.

    Carrots aren't naturally orange, bananas aren't naturally yellow, and neither is corn. Yet, as long as the seeds didn't come from Monsanto, we assume they are non-GMO. The fact is, whether they are labeled as GMO or not, these are foods that we have created though hand-guided evolutionary process, the same way we create new breeds of dogs though selective mating. We create new variants of species through the simple process of selection, yet this is, by definition creating GMOs, and this is a process that has happened for thousands of years.

    The other reality is that not all lab-modified foods are bad. The anti-GMO crowd likes to imagine that any food product that has passed though a lab at some point (e.g. seed development), is somehow a poison that is going to kill everyone 50 years down the line. This simply isn't the case. Anti-GMO advocates like to forget about the health benefits of some GMO technology – like helping to boost specific nutrients in our diets, that we lack due to cultural taste and selective diet. Also, GMO has helped to create produce that are resistant to disease and pests, allowing cultivation without chemicals (pesticides, fungicides, etc.) and increasing the amount of organic food production while also decreasing costs to producers and consumers.

    Additionally, not all GMOs are "patented" and not all GMO development corporations are running around suing poor farmers for re-using seeds. This is the extreme case that anti-GMO groups like to throw around: the narrative of the poor global-south farmer with his cute little homestead farm, being crushed under the heels of the big globalist corporation. People also don't realize that many non-GMO seeds are patented, so being GMO or not isn't real issue here. The argument should be against intellectual property right, not scientific development.

    The reality is that without GMOs we would not be able to feed the current population. Anyone who has spent any time reading about the agricultural revolution of the 20th century understands this. Population simply would not be sustainable without developments in food production, including GMO technologies.

    All that being said, yes, of course there are GMOs that probably have been wrongly-engineered to cut costs in the wrong places, or to boost flavor while sacrificing nutritional value. Perhaps these specific type of GMO should be fought, but to lump all GMOs into a basket and ban them as a whole is not only ignorant, but flat out ridiculous. Try feeding the world population without GMOs, and let me know how that goes…tell the poor of the world that they have to starve and reduce their population numbers because we want to ban GMOs which will ultimately result in a sharp cut in food supply. Yeah, let me know how that goes…

  5. elephantjournal says:

    Mary VonBreck Wow. What misinformation. GMOs can not be be created in nature. It is absolutely white lab coat issue. Species that are not sexually compatable are genetically mutated into a completely new species. That is how it can be patented.

    Tom Frascone
    Misinformation? Not quite, you misread or misunderstood the point of my comment. You're also forgetting that genetically engineering (GE) takes various forms, historically.

    There's a difference between historical versus modern. Prior to th…e 20th century (& modern GE practices): "Gatherers find food from plants they find in nature, and farmers plant seeds saved from domesticated crops. Foods are manipulated through the use of yeast and fermentation. Some naturalists and farmers begin to recognize "hybrids," plants produced through natural breeding between related varieties of plants." This continued into the 20th century: "European plant scientists begin using Gregor Mendel's genetic theory to manipulate and improve plant species. This is called "classic selection." A plant of one variety is crossed with a related plant to produce desired characteristics."

    Later came "modern" GE, from the mid-20th century onward: "James Watson and Francis Crick publish their discovery of the three-dimensional double helix structure of DNA. This discovery will eventually lead to the ability of scientists to identify and "splice" genes from one kind of organism into the DNA of another."

    Take the time to read my whole original comment, and better research the history of GMOs maybe. Perhaps look at Gregor Mendel's experiments in Plant Hybridization (circa mid-19th Century). People have known for a long time how to "engineer" organisms into producing new organisms with desired traits, even without modern technologies.

    Waylon Lewis Tom, it is a black and white issue until they're proven safe in all varieties. Until then, you're allowing an unknown to breed. Organics don't turn GMOS into organics. But gmos turn organics into GMOs. In only 15 years, 99% of rice, soy, corn (and now alfalfa's next) are GMO.

    Mary, share this via your newsletter? We should be blasting this out, so We the People are aware of what our Commissioners are about to do, or not do.

    Tom Frascone
    As usual, anti-GMO crowd wants to polarize the issue, and refuses to address the issue of food supply and population.

    The fact is, the world population already relies on GMO food products. You've pointed this out yourself, Waylon. Now tell… me, if we cut GMO production, thus decreasing available food supply, who is going to end up with less on their plate? Let me answer that for you: the poor, and the poorest of the poor. They will be the ones who are priced out due to the increased food costs.

    So, you think we should allow the poor to starve, so we can cut GMO production? Interesting…See More

    Waylon Lewis Riiiiiiiight, Tom, Monsanto and friends are really just doing their good work for the poor masses. The problem of food, as you know, is distribution and corruption, not production. Using modern and ancient techniques, organics have many times over been shown to be more productive long-term—the soil is richer, the food healthier, the farmers don't have to wear protective suits and die of cancer at age 45.

  6. […] we made the bold choice to embrace The Man, and abdicate precedent-setting leadership. Thanks, politically-incorrect Daily Camera. Thanks, Will. Thanks, Ben. Thanks, Cindy. It must have been hard not to listen to your […]

  7. Jessica says:

    GMO vs. BOULDER: See my photos of the Boulder Commissioners Meeting on Dec 8th in Longmont here:

    A picture speaks a thousand words.

  8. Jessica says:

    BIG LOSS FOR BOULDER COUNTY VS. GMO: Boulder Commissioner voted today to accept the standing Cropland policy which includes GMO crops. Read their ruling here:

    Commissioners adopt Boulder County Cropland Policy
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011

    Boulder County, Colo. – The Boulder County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously today to adopt the county Cropland Policy with some additional recommendations.
    The policy, which has been under development throughout the last two years, includes the conditional approval of some genetically engineered crops. The approval includes corn, which has been allowed since 2003, and directs staff to develop protocols for the planting of sugar beets.
    The additional recommendations will ensure that Roundup Ready crops are not planted year-after-year and maintain crop rotation to prevent herbicide-resistant weeds from developing on public lands. Additionally, a notification program will be established to inform Boulder County land managers and neighboring private farms and landowners when any new genetically engineered crop is to be planted on public land.

  9. Jackalope says:

    Dear Waylon:

    Thanks for your continuing crusade on behalf of Boulder in its ongoing battle with GMO suppression!

    Waylon, if I may say: You are truly the Indiana Jones of Buddhism.