more articles like this

GMOs
updated: Oct 20, 2012, 9:29 AM

By Edhat Subscriber

I'm interested in comments from the EdHat community on prop. 37, the labeling of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients -- GMOs.

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 333560	2012-10-20 09:38 AM
I'm all for sound regulations and labeling based on science, but every single study of GMOs has proven them as safe as any other food product. We are supposed to be an enlightened people. That is, we are supposed to be children of the Enlightenment, which argued that human beings ought to apply reason to their daily existence. All I see coming from the GMO scare-mongers is superstition and irrational fear. Also, look at who is backing Prop 37. Almost all the money to fund it comes from the Mercola Foundation, which argues that mammograms and chemotherapy shouldn't be used to treat breast cancer. Instead, the man who established the foundation has made himself a fortune by selling snake-oil medicines to desperate breast cancer patients.
COMMENT 333563	2012-10-20 09:40 AM
Sounds like a good idea but I would really like a more informative label - What kind of GMO(s), exactly? And what effects might these have on people? As usual, a complex issue is reduced to a yes/no black/white question on the ballot. Bleeding hearts on one side and big Ag on the other and I have to say I have little faith in either. I voted by mail and voted Yes but I wish I had given this one a little more study.
COMMENT 333564	2012-10-20 09:52 AM
There is nothing bad about gaining knowledge and having proper labeling.
COMMENT 333566	2012-10-20 09:53 AM
I want to know what I am putting into my body
COMMENT 333569P	2012-10-20 10:03 AM
Simple, if you care about what you put in your body as food then vote yes. If not vote no.
COMMENT 333571P	2012-10-20 10:08 AM
I don't know what to make of Proposition 37. I try not to be cynical, but am generally skeptical of propositions since they tend to be placed on the ballot and funded by very specific groups of people to further a very specific cause. And while they may have good intentions, the execution is often very poor. Take for example our propositions that have made it virtually illegal for sex offenders to exist anywhere in our state. Now we can't keep track of them all and have no idea where they are. Are we really better off? Why is proposition 37, along with the other ballot propositions, not going to our representatives in the Assembly and Senate? Don't we elect and pay them to evaluate legislation and make a decision? Our initiative system lets individuals and companies with significant resources circumvent that process by taking the proposition directly to the voters, however ill prepared the voters may be to make a decision on it. Does anyone remember Fess Parker's 1999 failed attempt to get the voters to approve his hotel project after the City denied him? Measure S, as it was known, was Fess Parker (an individual with significant resources) trying to circumvent the City's regulations and processes by popular vote. So who is the Fess Parker of proposition 37 and what is their end goal? The same question should be asked of the other propositions.
COMMENT 333572	2012-10-20 10:10 AM
We have a right to know what is in our food or how it was grown or modified. Do we trust research that tells us it is safe when so many pesticides and drugs that were approved as safe have been removed from the market due to serious side affects that showed up years later. I just wouldn't want to take a chance, especially with babies and young children eating foods that may or may not be proven to be safe down the road. Remember DDT was "safe" too in its day.
COMMENT 333575P	2012-10-20 10:19 AM
Great question - When I read the concept of prop 37 and saw who was running the anti-37 campaign it seemed a no brainer to vote for it. Unfortunately there is so much confusion in the details I am not sure I want to vote for it. It could be bad for small local businesses. I've heard one of the requirements is for retailers (such as Isla Vista Coop and Santa Cruz Market) to label and maintain exhaustive paperwork. This would be a huge burden on independent businesses. Here's a few other items that bother me: §110809.2 Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food—Exemptions The requirements of Section 110809 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering. (e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. (h) Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either: (i) is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (ii) is served, sold or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food facility that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption. It appears the reason for these exemptions is that such a proposition can only address one subject area so without the exemptions it would be illegal. But with the exemptions it seems arbitrary. We have such an overcomplicated, convoluted legal system!
COMMENT 333576	2012-10-20 10:27 AM
Just think: Monsanto has spent $7m on the campaign against this proposition. If you're worried about poor Monsanto getting sued, consider the amount of millions they spend every year on lobbying and lawsuits to crush local farmers because their patented seeds cross-pollinate with other farms growing similar crops.
COMMENT 333577	2012-10-20 10:30 AM
Vote no. We are strangled by senseless regulations. Figure this out for yourself if this matters so much to you individually, but don't increase food costs for everyone else who does not care. Someone pays every time these petty vanity regulation initiatives gets passed. Nothing is free and this one is clearly not worth it.
COMMENT 333578	2012-10-20 10:31 AM
There is no "right to know". You have a right to be thankful that you live in a time and place where you have plenty of food available to you. GMO's have saved over a BILLION people worldwide from starvation. I hope prop 37 fails, but I am at least glad that it is getting the conversation started. Who knows though, if it does pass, in 50 years when water is a scarce resource, we can look to our labels to ensure we are supporting farmers that use drought resistant crops.
COMMENT 333579P	2012-10-20 10:33 AM
It's a start. While there are lots of loopholes and exemptions, those can be dealt with legislatively. It's hard to argue with the intent of letting consumers know when their food has been Monsantoized. If it leads to the use of "GMO free" in advertising to differentiate among exempted products - which it will - so much the better. It's not a ban; it's information. Thus far, the pro arguments wipe out the fussy opposing ones that big agro is backing.
COMMENT 333580P	2012-10-20 10:38 AM
Ever seen "The Vanishing Bees" documentary? The clips of clouds of DDT being sprayed onto pedestrians and animals as they walk on the sidewalks are shocking in retrospect, but at the time it was considered a great idea. There are plenty of examples of unintended consequences (x-ray kids feet to make sure those shoes fit, saturate infant sleepwear with flame retardant, and on and on). Today's bright idea might look like a tragic error in a decade or two. If a plant has been genetically modified to express a pesticide, I want to know it.
COMMENT 333581	2012-10-20 10:42 AM
Prop 37 is a step in the right direction. Many countries already have GMO labeling. See who is backing No on 37! That is what scares me. Monsanto and other companies who are scared we won't buy their products because they contain GMO products. SO, why are they scared? What do they know?
COMMENT 333582	2012-10-20 10:47 AM
I would vote for it if there were not so many exemptions for certain main-stream products. That smells of special interest tampering. Dog food is covered, but not meat for humans--were the cattle fed GMO corn? I believe if you buy organic products you can already avoid GMO if that worries you. I buy ground buffalo rather than beef because it doesn't have hormones or antibiotics in their feed.
COMMENT 333583	2012-10-20 10:48 AM
Yet another proposed regulation where the main winners will be the lawyers. You pay double for "organic" food, none of which has been proven to be any better for you than non-organic. Guess how much you will have to pay for non-GMO food? Drivers already cross state lines to buy gas. Now they will be crossing state lines to buy groceries. When will it end? I'll be voting no.
COMMENT 333584	2012-10-20 10:50 AM
It strikes me as amusing how everyone mocks the righties when they disregard climate change science on the grounds that they dislike he results. And rightly so--anyone who refuses to believe the truth simply because they don't like it is a fool. It only stands to reason that we apply the same standard to lefties who disregard the scientific consensus that GMOs are perfectly safe.
COMMENT 333585	2012-10-20 10:53 AM
GMOs are a nightmare. bacteria and pests quickly adapt to take advantage of the new GMO food source and then create the need for further Pesticide applications, it's an endless cycle which monsanto is profiting from on both sides. For those of you who think GMOs are fine, don't worry. You can still buy them and feed them to your kids. We are simply voting that they are labeled so people who care about what they eat and the health of the environment can avoid them. Carighttoknow dot org
SCEPTIC	2012-10-20 10:55 AM
560: Two of the many studies you overlooked: 1) Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Mar;45(3):364-77. Epub 2006 Sep 14: " significant differences in weight of small intestine, stomach and pancreas and plasma biochemistry were seen between groups, 90-day study was a rice variety expressing the kidney bean Phaseolus vulgaris lectin agglutinin E-form (PHA-E lectin). Female Wistar rats were given a nutritionally balanced purified diet with 60% parental rice, 60% PHA-E rice or 60% PHA-E rice spiked with 0.1% recombinant PHA-E lectin for 90 days". 2) Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009 Feb;49(2):164-75Health risks of genetically modified foods. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Source: Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece. "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835 The first article is also on the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) site, I didn't copy the link.
COMMENT 333587P	2012-10-20 10:58 AM
Right 564, exactly how I feel. Knowledge is power and not every interest wants it spread about as common currency. I visited back east recently and was standing in line at a Starbucks. I commented to my friend that I am more careful with how often I splurge on those delicious pastries now that I can see the calories right up front. She looked puzzled and I realized that there was no such labeling there. People were happily and innocently grabbing their apple fritters and coffee, probably to take to a desk job. Great for business, not so much for health. I'd much rather know, although its been ages since I had a fritter. ;-)
COMMENT 333589	2012-10-20 11:08 AM
Like others, I want to know what I'm putting into my body. However, in the larger scheme of things, I would be far more interested to know what pesticides were used on the crops ending up in my dinner; to say nothing of the hormones and god know what that go into cow that provided the steak on my grill.
COMMENT 333590P	2012-10-20 11:08 AM
There are people on both left and right who are against GMO food - it is non-partisan. Some countries have banned GMO food products. "In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, because they are not considered proven safe. In the U.S. on the other hand, the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale. Many health-conscious shoppers find the lack of rigorous, independent, scientific examination on the impact of consuming GM foods to be cause for concern." http://www.nongmoproject.org/about-gmos-2/ The aspect of GMOs that is disturbing are the rules of seed use by Monsanto - and that innocent farmers can be caught up in legal processes just because GMO seed blew onto their property. There is much about GMO marketing that is immoral.
COMMENT 333592	2012-10-20 11:17 AM
The GMO Products clearly began to increase profit margins for corporate gain. It would be difficult to believe that there was much philanthropy involved whatsoever in feeding the world, though a good slogan. As a lower bottom line came about for producers why is it food costs have increased so dramatically. Clearly there has been more than adequate profit-sharing. The argument that food costs would increase due to labeling costs is rediculous. Not only should the labeling have been done way back when, the excessive profits by the GMO companies should cover them due to any lack of informing which contributed to those profits. Clearly many food suppliers could have made different choices in ingredients had such information been disclosed, thus reducing GMO profit retrospectively.
COMMENT 333594	2012-10-20 11:20 AM
If you can improve sales of products by marking them Parve or Kosher, then if you can improve sales by marking GMO free or not, then no buggy. If you don't care if your food is kosher or not, no biggy. If you don't care if your food has GMOs, then no biggy.
COMMENT 333595	2012-10-20 11:28 AM
Since big bio companies have already bought all of your representatives, you are basically asking the fox to guard the henhouse. I'm all for more information too, but this is a fundamentally flawed bill, based on unsound science and will ultimately be used as a tool by those we are trying to protect ourselves from.
COMMENT 333596P	2012-10-20 11:29 AM
I have the right to know what I am eating. That has nothing to do with whether it is good, bad or indifferent. If this bill exempts too many things. Pass it and fix the exemptions next time around. When most of the money opposing something comes from Monsanto, how bad can it be?
COMMENT 333599	2012-10-20 11:35 AM
Here is how the market place works: Hold WholeFoods (or any other Prius-pleasing food purveyor) feet to the fire and demand they control this, if it matters to you the boutique non-GMO food buyers. Shun all frivolous statewide ballot propositions funded by known nut case and opposed by equally suspect forces of evil. Never should have gotten this far - don't vote for junk propositions someone paid to get on our ballots. Here is the choice boys and girls: (1) Let the market and private choice control this issue so you can shop where you are personally comfortable, or (2) Let the government set up another massive bureaucracy that invades the entire marketplace and imposes meaningless regulations that impact the vast majority of consumers who simply do not care.
COMMENT 333600	2012-10-20 11:37 AM
Choosing non-genetically altered foods is no different from wishing to choose organic foods, vegan or, as the previous poster said, kosher foods. Why must corporate America decide what we can or can't know about the food we eat? If you trust corporations like Monsanto with your health and well being ignore the labeling and eat everything your heart desires in a package. But don't deny your fellow citizens' desire to be more careful about the food they eat or wish to know what's in it.
COMMENT 333602	2012-10-20 11:43 AM
Note that Monsanto benefits from selling the patented seeds for many GMOs as well as the herbicides and pesticides such as Roundup that are needed to kill off pests. As with antibiotics, pests and weeds are getting stronger and we need to use more and more chemicals and then GMO plants need to be redesigned to be more resistant towards the herbicides that kill the bad plants. It's a cycle that funds greed and personally I prefer nature's way without any modification. Check the facts online. Monsanto has spent over 7 million, Dupont over 4 to fight 37. Over 16 million total by big corporations. We could fund education with this money. So the question is: what are they afraid of?
COMMENT 333603	2012-10-20 11:47 AM
There seems to be the misconception out there that food producers will be responsible for ensuring that their labels are accurate. That's not the case with Prop 37--the grocery store itself has to go to each and every producer of a food item it sells and get a sworn statement from each one about whether the product has GMO in it or not. Then, if any of those statements are inaccurate, the store can be sued for millions of dollars. A lot of independent grocery stores are going to be put out of business by this. Why did they write such a cockamamie system into Prop 37? Simple--the big food companies would fight back if they put the burden on them, so Prop 37's megacorporate backers decided to hit the independent grocery stores that don't have the money to fight back.
COMMENT 333614P	2012-10-20 12:12 PM
603: That is exactly my biggest concern. Let the manufacturer be responsible for the proof and the label. I want to know what's in my food but 37 isn't the way to do it. For now I'll continue to eat organic whenever possible.
COMMENT 333615	2012-10-20 12:13 PM
I don't want any of that nasty GMO stuff. And I dont want any of those terrible immunizations that might cause problems. I will stock up on my herbal medicines and always be healthy.
ROB EGENOLF	2012-10-20 12:13 PM
Boy a lot of you seem to be drinking the corporate Kool Aid Prop 37 only requires labels Prop 37 bans nothing If you want less information about what goes into your body you can remain truly foolish and avoid reading these new labels If you want more information about what goes into your body you need Prop 37 to have the opportunity to read these labels Make of these labels what you will, but there is little sound logical reason not to have them on our food. Yes on Prop 37
COMMENT 333618	2012-10-20 12:17 PM
I want to know what is in my food, regardless if science shows that it's harmless to people. What it is harmful to is the genetic seed stocks of thousands of years of traditional breeding.
COMMENT 333626P	2012-10-20 12:40 PM
ROB EGENOLF: The labels don't magically appear. Who has to provide the labeling and how? That's the part that confuses/potentially bothers me. If the food manufacturers have to do it, great. If the retailers have to do that for their thousands of items it would be a nightmare and completely unfair to them. Beyond unfair, it could conceivably put some out of business. Any insight on that facet?
COMMENT 333630	2012-10-20 12:52 PM
Much has been made about who is paying for the "No on 37" movement. How about who is paying for the "Yes" side? Leading donations to the Yes on 37 side, at $1.1 million in donations, is Mercola Health Resources. Mercola Health Resources is the online "nutritional supplement" business of the popular alternative medicine purveyor Joseph Mercola, whose very name can prompt near-aneurysms in the skeptical community. In addition to opposing GMOs in food, Mercola has championed the anti-vaccination movement, which is generally credited for the current resurgence of whooping cough and measles. Though he's supporting the labeling of food via Prop 37, Mercola has had run-ins with the feds over his own product labels, with the FDA ordering him to change labels on his products that falsely claimed health benefits for their use, including an algae supplement that, according to Quack Watch, was said to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
COMMENT 333635P	2012-10-20 01:06 PM
Initiatives are generally a bad idea because they lock in laws and regulations that can only be undone or modified by the courts or another initiative. The proper place for these statues and regulations is in the legislature where they can be changed as circumstances change. I will be voting no even though I am supportive of the content. The method is deeply flawed.
COMMENT 333637	2012-10-20 01:08 PM
Why is California falling off a cliff? A certified nut case pays to get a whackadoodle initiative on the ballot and as fatally flawed as it is, enough hair-shirt wearing lemmings think it is a "good start". Are these the products of our California public education system? A double pox on all our houses because most likely they are. No difference between righties and lefties when it comes to following any charlatan who comes to town, promising the elixir of eternal life if you just follow me and do or pay for XYZ. GMO is the latest XYZ. But charlatans and the promise of life everlasting through paid intermediaries is as old as time itself. Mercola is just one more fraud foisting his promises on the amazingly gullible who so eagerly part with their money, and then claim it is too expensive to live in Santa Barbara.
COMMENT 333638	2012-10-20 01:12 PM
We should also ban hybridization of crops. Just leave it the way nature started it. We never know when something new is bad. There is no possible way to test things to prove that they are harmless. I think that this would eliminate most imports as they lack the means to prove the ancestry of crops.
EMUWREN1	2012-10-20 01:26 PM
There's a great video on YouTube titled "Genetic Roulette." Its running time is approx 90 minutes. It may seem a bit hokey at first, but the vid is loaded with great information re: GMO and rBGH. Watching that video made me a believer. Until the labeling commences AVOID these 10 foods, unless you can find the Non-GMO stamps on the packaging or UNLESS YOU CAN BUY ORGANIC: Soy/soybeans Beet Sugar (as opposed to "cane" sugar) Cottonseed oil Corn Aspartame papayas Canola Dairy Zucchini Yellow squash Some products already carry the "No rBGH" (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) labeling. Be sure and take your reading glasses to the markets from now on. VOTE "YES" ON 37. (If you haven't done so by mail already.)
EMUWREN1	2012-10-20 01:27 PM
Oops. Edhat messed with my list: corn aspartame Two separate items.
COMMENT 333646	2012-10-20 01:36 PM
Like most things, there is a spectrum of effects here. I wouldn't touch a "Round Up Ready" GM vegetable. But something that has simply been modified to fix nitrogen in the soil, I wouldn't worry about. There are probably far worse things going on in our industrial food chain that we should be concerned about.
SHOREBIRD	2012-10-20 01:39 PM
638 If we avoided hybridization corn would still be a wild grass with little nutritional value at all.
COMMENT 333652P	2012-10-20 01:57 PM
333637 - how expensive is it to add three letters to a label. And since this is not yet done, what does it have to do with California falling off a cliff? My head hurts.
COMMENT 333669P	2012-10-20 02:48 PM
I agree with 635. Initiative process it out of control. What do we pay legislators for? We're doing their job. OTOH, that's represntative democracy; one form of it. Special interests rule propositions. Of course I fundamentally agree with Prop. 37. Not yet sure how I'll vote on it though. True for many other props too. Law is not necessarily good/reasonable/beneficial. Plus, I tend to believe most foods, at least grain staples and therefore meat, ARE GMO'd. Hard to get away from, and it's already in you and our environment. This is old news. I'm not being partisan, though I have "liberal" tendencies. Go to LA Times and search for the prop. number. Some decent info there, as there is at many other sites. Search Murdoch sources also. And so many more! I better get cracking on my sample ballot.
COMMENT 333673	2012-10-20 03:13 PM
I agree with 635P and 669P. I think having a labeling law is a good idea, but doing it through an initiative crafted by a lawyer is a crappy way to do it. You really need to do your homework to understand why this is, but start by reading the No on 37 endorsements from: San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee San Jose Mercury News The CA Dept of Health (they're responsible for food safety) should have an agency responsible for rules and enforcement of GM labeling. As science progresses and our understanding of GM foods increases, that agency could flex accordingly. But an initiative like Prop 37 is static and very difficult to change.
COMMENT 333677	2012-10-20 03:31 PM
Sad that so many people are against a simple labeling requirement. We require all sorts of things to be listed on food labels, including ingredients. The only reason for keeping consumers from knowing if their food contains GMOs is because the food manufacturers have something to hide.
COMMENT 333679	2012-10-20 03:38 PM
For this to matter it has to be more than three puny letters. It has to have teeth to protect these poor innocents who dare not let any GMO pass their lips. That is the rub -- hiring armies of testers and enforcers to ensure the public GMO-free actually means something. Otherwise the labeling is a fraud, even if its underlying premise is fraudulent to start out with. Demand WholeFoods perpetrate this fraud on you at your mutual expense but keep the rest of us out of it. So love your theory, but for goodness sakes get a grip on how this will be put into practice. Vote no and shop more carefully, because no you don't have a right to know what is in your food 24/7. But you do have the right to choose your food sources with your own comfortable level of vigilance.
COMMENT 333693	2012-10-20 04:06 PM
Fooducate Check this app out! You can scan barcodes. Award winning iPhone & android app and website now provide GMO information on hundreds of thousands of products.
COMMENT 333705	2012-10-20 04:51 PM
For those of you who think Prop 37 is a simple law to put labels on food, I urge you to read the text of the proposition. It is not as simple as you think! Also read the No on 37 endoresements written by the major CA newspapers (papers with both liberal and conservative editorial boards are coming out against Prop 37 because it will result in flawed regulation) ... SF Chronicle, LA Times, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times. Pay special attention to the enforcement portion of Prop 37, that part is especially flawed. I am all for putting labels on GM food. But just because the intent is good, that doesn't mean the regulations dictated by Prop 37 are any good! We need GM food labeling ... but not via a rigid & flawed initiative like Prop 37. Labeling should be done under a state agency with full authority to regulate/enforce the labeling process. We have to get this right because the rest of the nation usually follows what we do here in CA.
COMMENT 333732	2012-10-20 07:09 PM
This citizen voted No. Over-regulation, check. Over-used initiative process, check.
JUKINJAY	2012-10-20 07:42 PM
Those arguing against it claiming that it is just like organic or kosher are missing the point. The law doesn't ban anything. It simply requires an accurate label, just like the label saying organic or kosher, or detailing the calories and nutrients. I'm for it. I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid GMO foods just like I don't avoid non-kosher or non-organic. But people who choose to only eat non-GMO can do so only if they know. Most advanced countries label GMO foods, why not us? The fact that Monsanto and the big biochem companies are spending millions to fight it is kind of telling.
COMMENT 333755	2012-10-20 08:52 PM
Monsanto assures us that GMO's are safe and no testing is needed. They said the same thing about another of their products in the 60's, Agent Orange. It is still causing new illness as those with decades old cases continue to suffer. Why wouldn't you trust Monsanto?
COMMENT 333788	2012-10-21 07:30 AM
626, sorry, but you remind me of the undecided voters, particularly as they are portrayed by Saturday Night Live in a recent, and hilarious, parody. The cost of labeling will be passed on to us, the consumers. Common sense, I say haltingly, would have it that the producers and distributors would make darn sure that not a day goes by where retailers would have to worry about putting labels on food. After all, the only thing worse for them than their food being on the shelf for purchase with a GMO label would be if their food were not on the shelf at all (because some retailer was worried that putting it there might get cited or sued). Your question is less disturbing than the post above that says we should be prevented from knowing about what we are eating out of sheer gratitude for the take over of food production brought to us by our messianic saviors at Monsanto, etc. Good grief!
COMMENT 333796	2012-10-21 08:09 AM
I've just about had it with these propositions, and would like to see a movement to dispense with them and let our legislators do the job they were meant to do. Anyone can get a proposition on the ballot with the required number of signatures. Never mind the beaurocratic mess that may ensue or the cost to taxpayers, or the funds needed to implement it that may be taken from other areas such as education. I'm almost at the point where I just want to vote "no" on them all, but some of them are so cleverly written that voting "no" might actually have the opposite effect.
COMMENT 333798	2012-10-21 08:18 AM
Yes on Prop 37. I don't want big corporations like Monsanto to make a buck at the expense of my health and the health of the environment.
MTNDRIVER	2012-10-21 08:23 AM
It's just about labeling, not banning GMO foods. A lot of comments seem to ignore that. Why is labeling a problem? I have heard that some items are exempt, so it's not "fair"--but those complaints have come from groups sponsored by convenience food purveyors. The initiative may be funded primarily by a snake oil salesman, but I don't see that it benefits him financially. And for those who say there's been no proof GMO foods have any health effects, I'd say they have definite effects on the crops that are modified. And the issues around patenting seed and not allowing collecting seed from crops and the effects of splicing in pest-killing genes that then also kill beneficial insects.....well, maybe it's off-topic, but GMO products have a lot of serious problems before they ever reach the grocery store shelf.
UPONTHEHILL	2012-10-21 08:30 AM
I will vote yes. I want the information in order to make a clear decision about what my family will eat.
COMMENT 333813	2012-10-21 09:05 AM
Wow, how divided we (still) are. We have way too complicated a legal system for anyone to be able to claim they really understand what a proposed law will do. I want GMO's banned for biological reasons--we're messing with nature in a fundamental way with no health studies! Hello! I want Monsanto to die and would like to be the one who puts a stake through its measly heart. But is this a good law to make that happen? I don't know, and I may never know!!!
UPONTHEHILL	2012-10-21 09:26 AM
I will vote yes. I want the information in order to make a clear decision about what my family will eat.
COMMENT 333825	2012-10-21 09:59 AM
There are a lot of really bad arguments here from both sides. Some GMO's are beneficial, but they are risky on a large scale and are associated with very bad business practices. But labels won't provide useful, detailed information like nutritional labels, and these labels are the responsibility of the retailer, not the manufacturer, which is the wrong approach. This creates a "right to know" by fiat. What Monsanto knows is that such labels will reduce their profits, regardless of whether that is warranted. OTOH, the exemptions are reasonable and necessary. Dog food is subject to the labels because it has vegetable products that may be GMO's mixed in with it. Animals that may have eaten GMO's aren't covered because that would require a whole other bureaucracy to track.
COMMENT 333837	2012-10-21 11:16 AM
50 other countries in the world require labeling of gmos. No big deal. Totally banned for human consumption in New Zealand. If these gmos are so good for us, why aren't the makers proud to label them, as a selling point??? Don't be deceived. $36 million buys a lot of lies...don't let it buy your vote. It's not a political issue, it's a health issue.
COMMENT 333840	2012-10-21 11:29 AM
Please watch "Genetic Roulette", for free, the 10 minute version or the full length version, go to: http://geneticroulettemovie.com
COMMENT 333885	2012-10-21 01:19 PM
If it is no big deal, why bother? Watch out for single person vanity voter initiatives. Bad news. That alone is reason to turn this down. Hey, you know soy is GMO. Just stop buying it. The food labels already say if soy is an ingredient. Shop only where they claim their soy is better than the other guys' soy. And leave the rest of this junk science alone for the rest of us. And start saying no to these ill-advised vanity voter initiatives. If you really want this to be the law, get Das Williams to run it through the legislature.
COMMENT 333888	2012-10-21 01:22 PM
Monsanto is pouring millions, yes millions, of dollars to prevent this passing. I believe that we have a right to know what we are putting in our bodies, and am surprised this has to even be an issue to be voted on. GMO's are not allowed in western Europe, Soviet Union and now China is considering the same.
COMMENT 333904	2012-10-21 01:42 PM
If this passes, then what about food that is served when you eat out? Will they have to declare on their menus if the food contains gmo? What about packaged foods that contain some gmo, say 10% of the product?
COMMENT 333922	2012-10-21 02:16 PM
Monsanto is evil. Whether or not Proposition 37 will properly address the issues is the question.
COMMENT 333964P	2012-10-21 03:33 PM
Think about it - If Monsanto's spending millions on NO on 37, do you want to vote with them? YES on 37.
NATURE BOY	2012-10-21 03:46 PM
Food for thought: An excellent video on the vitrues of GMO foods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8 It doesn't address the specific issue of labeling as Prop 37 does, but it addresses why GMO crops can save (and HAVE saved) literally billions of lives, thanks to Norman Borlaug, considered the father of the Green Revolution.
COMMENT 334077	2012-10-21 08:52 PM
Wow, this issue has more controversy than I expected. As a local "certified organic" vegetable producer, I have already been applying stickers to all my tomatoes and cucumbers that are sold as well as the "organic" printing on our boxes and I feel proud of this fact.I want the public to have a choice in their purchasing selection and have faith that they are educated in this area. Believe me, Monsanto is no friend to farmers, poor countries, and you the consumer. They develop their products with one thing in mind. "Profit" When you allow your basic source of health to be profit motivated, you are asking for a system where "anything is O.K." when growing our food. At the least, let's label the way it's grown, and what is in it, so we can choose what to support.
COMMENT 334234P	2012-10-22 10:26 AM
I was shocked to read here how many people are either confused, or against Prop 37. I never, ever would have expected educated people to even question the wisdom of labeling these foods--especially since we are (or should be) aware of the new studies coming our linking them with cancerous tumors in mice (look it up if you don't believe me). Furthermore, many other countries are very concerned-some even banning them outright. Are we so behind as a state that we are allowing ourselves to be convinced by MONSANTO? HUH? Are you kidding me? I would also like to point out that for those of us who can afford to buy our family's food at Whole Foods and Lazy Acres, we will be able to continue protecting our family's heath by avoiding genetically modified foods. However, those of you on here who are not able to pay those kinds of big bucks should really be gung-ho FOR Proposition 37 because it is the only way that you will be able to know what you are feeding your family. Believe me, Monsanto is NOT looking out for the health of you and your loved ones. So, I hope you use your intelligence and not get duped.
COMMENT 334240P	2012-10-22 10:34 AM
Buy from your local farmer's market or local farmer and no need to pass more regulations and have more bureacacy.
COMMENT 334242	2012-10-22 10:39 AM
@234P - Ooh! That's a great point. We should also be equally aware that the scientific methods used to show links between mice and cancers had massive systemic flaws, and nearly every scientist who's reviewed it said the data is "suspect, at best" and wondered how it ever got published? Because according to that study, feeding mice some percent of GMOs, only GMOs, and non-GMO plants still covered in pesticides all resulted in the same incidence of cancers. In lab rats that are bred to get cancers. That doesn't sound fishy to you? If you think that "disclosure is better" - why not support an amendment that establishes a legal protection for GMO-free? Forcing everyone to write "contains GMOs" carries with it the implicit (and totally unproven) air of danger.
MACSCIDOR	2012-10-22 10:52 AM
(Biotech giant) Monsanto's practices were highlighted in a few Democracy Now programs [search for 'genetically modified seed' on Democracy Now site]. I was shocked to hear that when Monsanto seeds blew into a Canadian farmer's property, Monsanto accused him of illegally growing their crops and took him to court. The (highly-educated) Canadian farmer had worked years to grow the perfect crops for his local soil conditions -- and was then forced into a huge legal battle. I vote YES for this labeling ... the 'giant' needs to stop controlling all aspects of seed production and food-labeling practices.
COMMENT 334260	2012-10-22 11:06 AM
My favorite is the commercial that says that our food bill will go up by an average of $400 due to the labeling requirements. I'm sure that is an accurate estimate. Since the legislators can't/won't do their jobs, we have to decide if flawed propositions will get us part of the way to where we want to be. As a conservative, I would say that until the long term effects of GMO food are known, we should stick to the basic food that we evolved with. Unfortunately, a lot of the heritage grains are already gone from the market and we are stuck with what Monsanto has already altered.
COMMENT 334292	2012-10-22 11:53 AM
I do not understand why we need legislation to find out what is in the food we are eating. Did anyone ever think of doing some research themselves? So now we know some companies use GMOs. Find out who they are and do not buy their products if you do not want to eat GMOs. Truth be told if more people took the initiative to do some research and educate themselves it would force industries to make better decisions. Companies that do not use GMOs can use it as a marketing tool to boost sales. People need to take some initiative and educate themselves about the food they eat rather than allow the passage of something that doesn't even begin to address the problem. To those who say pass it then improve on it later, absolutely not, improve and perfect before passage is the best way to make laws and regulations.
NATURE BOY	2012-10-22 04:22 PM
234P: I took your advice to "look it up" and Googled "GMO linked to cancer" and the first two articles actually DEBUNKED these claims. GMOs are the most tested segment of all food crops. They go through millions of dollars of testing, through both the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8
COMMENT 334853	2012-10-23 06:48 PM
YESon37, it's our consumer right to know. 37 is simple, straightforward, protects consumers, has no cost impact on consumers, is easy for businesses to follow & has common-sense exemptions. Don’t believe NO on 37 (ie. Monsanto, whom owns 90% of GMO patents), their mis-info is designed to confuse. For perspective, review "NOon37 vs YESon37" on SB Label GMOs facebook page. Don't let them buy your vote. Untruthful labeling is deception & a violation of our consumer rights, and hinders a free & fair transparent market. The FDA, USDA, Monsanto & Big Pharma don't want you to know what your eating. Face the facts.. gov serves corp interests & corp interests run gov (consumers are being bullied). I urge you to investigate who runs the FDA, USDA, and the White House (ref the Corp/Gov Connection -Notes tab on FB), and why GMOs are not labeled. There are too many unresolved questions, red flags & questionable practices; super weeds, super bugs, contamination, HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS..
COMMENT 335070	2012-10-24 09:58 AM
YESon37, it's our consumer right to know. 37 is simple, straightforward, protects consumers, has no cost impact on consumers, is easy for businesses to follow & has common-sense exemptions. Don’t believe NO on 37 (ie. Monsanto, whom owns 90% of GMO patents), their mis-info is designed to confuse. For perspective, review "NOon37 vs YESon37" on SB Label GMOs facebook page. Don't let them buy your vote. Untruthful labeling is deception & a violation of our consumer rights, and hinders a free & fair transparent market. The FDA, USDA, Monsanto & Big Pharma don't want you to know what your eating. Face the facts.. gov serves corp interests & corp interests run gov (consumers are being bullied). I urge you to investigate who runs the FDA, USDA, and the White House (ref the Corp/Gov Connection -Notes tab on FB), and why GMOs are not labeled. There are too many unresolved questions, red flags & questionable practices; super weeds, super bugs, contamination, HEALTH SAFETY CONCERNS..
COMMENT 335899	2012-10-26 12:15 PM
If GMO's are safe, which in my opinion they are not, why have most countries required them to be on labels or even banned them? They have not helped feed billions of people, like most people think. Disease in this country sky rocketed when GMO food was introduced into our diet with little or no testing. The cross over between Monsanto employees and the government is frightening. I have switched to a clean, organic diet and when I do have a lapse in old habits and eat processed food, I get severely sick, that should be and indicator that it is not healthy to eat.
COMMENT 339054	2012-11-04 12:47 PM
While Prop 37 looks good on the outside, the inside is not pretty. Look on page 112 in the Voter Guide and read up on the Enforcement section. Enforcement is solely through lawsuits! The true intention of this bill is about giving lawyers a new venue to launch frivolous lawsuits. The gmo wrapper on this initiative is to fool the average voter who doesn't read the text of the proposition. Anyone producing and distributing food products will be forced to label their products "may contain gmo products" to prevent frivolous legal action. This will dilute the visible intention of the bill. There are much better ways of handling this. The organic industry benefits from good regulation which is maintained by the USDA. Don't be fooled by bad propositions. We suffered enough from the text of power deregulation which was written for the enjoyment of the top 0.1% money mongers, e.g. Enron, Dick Cheney, et al. They made their killing because we allowed it.

35% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.