The reason why California has some of the highest priced gas in the nation is because of the special blend of gasoline the state requires. Passing Proposition 37 will have the same impact on the price of food. Food will cost more in this state because we are the only state to require special labeling laws. Those corporations which are required to comply with the new labeling requirements will simply pass those costs on to the consumer in this state. As such, the price of our food will go up.
With this initiative, we are going to put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors. Under the plain language of this proposition, food manufacturers from another country simply need to say that their product does not contain any genetically engineered food and they are not bound by the special labeling requirements. Meanwhile, any food manufacturer who has its base in the United States will be required to dot countless “i’s” and cross countless “t’s” in order to prove that there are no genetically engineered foods in their products.
Furthermore, the exemptions to this initiative are quite numerous. For instance: milk, cheese, and meat from animals fed genetically engineered feed are exempt. Beer, wine, liquor and food sold at restaurants are also exempt. Almost two-thirds of the foods consumed by Californians are exempt, including products sold by the corporations sponsoring Proposition 37.
Proposition 37 is one of the more contentious initiatives this fall. Its theme is that “We all have a right to know.” This assumes that consumers are kept in the dark and purposely uninformed concerning the food they buy. While there are some who believe that genetically engineered foods are bad for you and should be labeled, the problem with this law is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. It is a well-established fact that many genetically engineered foods have no consequences to your health.
One argument behind Proposition 37 is that organically grown food is more nutritious or safe than genetically engineered foods. There is no empirical evidence to support this idea. In fact, numerous studies have shown that conventional and organic foods are equally nutritious.
Major crops like corn and soy beans have been utilizing genetically engineered seeds for twenty years. These two major grains and their products are the most commonly used ingredients for the processed food industry. It will be extremely difficult for food processors to substitute ingredients that are free of genetic engineering. The only way to guarantee an avoidance of genetically engineered food is to buy organic food.
The organic food industry is very much alive and well in California. The grocery chain Whole Foods’ main claim to fame is that it has the largest selection of organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Not to stand idly by, Safeway, Lucky, Trader Joe’s and others all have extensive selections of organic foods for the discerning shopper. Most grocery stores feature organic foods but also maintain a large selection of non-organic food. The consumer already has a choice so we do not need more regulation to add to the already costly price of food.
The biggest winners in this proposition are the lawyers. The proposition was written by trial lawyers so that they will have an easy path to victory in court. Normally, damages have to be proven in order for someone to win. With the new rules, the lawyers do not even have to show damages in order to win. This initiative allows family farmers and grocers to be sued without any proof of harm. This is why a new class of “shakedown lawsuits” will now be legalized.
My position is to vote “NO” on Proposition 37. The list of exemptions makes the rules ineffective and panders to special interests. The special labeling will only increase the cost of food and open the door to litigation against family farmers and grocers. Another layer of government will only add to the cost of food. The costs are very high and Proposition 37’s largest financial backer admits it “would be an expensive logistical nightmare.” The so called benefits pale in comparison to the costs.
Mark Meuser is a candidate for State Senate District 7. You can follow him on Facebook.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/big-tobacco-shills-trying-to-stop-gmo-labeling-in-california_b_1773772.html The Military industrial Pharmceutical Agribusiness Complex sees humans as a commodity and businesses are increasingly protected by the Public Private Partnership (PPP). Total of 30 Million+ spent by sneaky Monsanto and other companies. Examples of lying corruption: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/10/07/university-objects-to-no-on-37-ad-implying-stanford-endorsement/ and who's funding each side: http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-37-funding-genetically-engineered-food.html more on the PR (Propoganda) and Legal (Propoganda) of Prop. 37. http://www.carighttoknow.org/ddt_agent_orange_gmos_and_you and this explains Herlooms, Hybrids and GMO's : http://www.kcet.org/socal/food/prop-37/heirlooms-hybrids-and-gmos.html People just want to know what's in their food. Profiteers are just - that - Profiteers - and the world doesn't want to be polluted by GE foods. ie. Ireland Potatoe and African small farms & on & on & on. Pesticide use has increased with GM Crops...hmmm: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002 YES ON 37.
We've been waiting over 6 hours since you mentioned that there were "paid shills" posting here. You wouldn't mind disclosing who they are, would you?
Yes on 37 just want to know what they are eating - pretty basic. Some GE Crops are designed to not re-seed, need more water, and royalties must be paid to Monsanto. Sounds way more expensive in many ways.
You actually mentioned that there were "paid shills" posting here in your posting of 04:17 pm on Monday, October 15, 2012 up above. Specifically, who are they? Start naming names so that we all know who they are. Otherwise, your accusation here is groundless and everything else you post may be equally groundless and I and possibly a few other posters here will suspect that it may not be truthful. So if you know that there are "paid shills" here, start identifying them or withdraw your claim that there are "paid shills" posting here in this particular discussion thread. I may not be a friend of anybody on either side of the political fence, but at the same time, I don't like liars, either, from any side of any political discussion.
Start naming who is a "paid shill" posting here in this discussion thread or withdraw your claim that there are "paid shills" posting here.
"Be aware of paid shills on these blogs trying to tell you Genetically Engineered Food is just fine." Now, if you suspect that some here is a "paid shill" come forward with your accusation. Otherwise, withdraw your claim. The longer you let this go on, the worse it gets for you, because nobody will trust what you post.
as well as how they plan to receive a royalty every year for every seed purchased as they propogate 'terminator seeds' that never re-seed, destroying small farmers globally.
Trial lawyers had nothing to do with the writing of this ballot measure. Please. The only lawyers who will see action are those of the Monsanto's, Dow's and junk food companies. I can go on and on about why Prop 37 is the correct way to go.
Prop 37 would allow for lawsuits to be filed by individuals against food companies without evidence of GMOs be present in food; this is no different than the wasteful Prop. 65 lawsuits (also one of Jim Wheaton's specialties). On the labeling aspect, those countries require labeling for products containing 5% or more; Prop 37 would set that level at 0 or above. Couple that with the threat of lawsuits, this will cause prices to rise as food companies have to respond to frivolous lawsuits that will arise if this prop passes. Finally, let's all remember that GMOs provide unquantifiable benefits to humanity. just 2 examples: Crop acreage has increased as crops are modified to grow in a variety of conditions and crops have been modified to include higher amounts of vitamins and minerals, so diets can be improved. Science is benefiting food production to the benefit of all.
How did we all get that way? It is because of the traits that our parents and sometimes even their families sought out. Trying to specify which part of "genetic modification" without examining the rest of it is not going to work. Ever since the first farmers out there bred their livestock and grew their produce, they have always been genetically modifying their product so that you have docile animals that can grow big with a little fat so that they could get more meat and more money for their efforts. And when it came to their produce, they were splicing and mixing up their plants to find the most hearty strains out there, that could survive both a Russian winter and even a winter out in the North American plains while getting the greatest yield so that the person growing it made more money for their efforts. The problem that some people have is that they don't want "mutated food", but the reality is quite different, where people on this planet have been growing, breeding and even feasting on food that has been mutated, modified and even completely changed from how it grew in the wilds some 9,000 years ago. So once again, when it comes to the delineation of what is "genetically modified" and what isn't, the line is blurry, because after 9,000 years of agriculture, we have been feasting pretty much on genetically modified foods to begin with.
Believe it or not, "Natural Selection" as even Darwin postulated it, is a genetic process and it is genetic modification. The problem here is that the wording in Proposition is just bad law when you get right down to it and if it passes, you may find a "who's who" of attorneys, law firms and even their clients out there seeking an injunction while the courts presiding over these cases decides on what is legal and what is not. And when it comes to genetic manipulation or even "modification", the question here is what is the difference between breeding two different species of bees out there to get more honey and modifying the genetic code in a sequence of DNA in a test tube? Both of those processes are genetic manipulation and/or modification when you get right down to it. And if the genetic modification issue gets settled here, what's to stop people from making similar laws about how to genetically modify people out there, which has been going on ever since Homo Habilis started walking upright when people selected their mates and sometimes their children's mates in the family?
That analogy might work on someone who has never taken a biology class.
The hybrid food is a cross between two species, both of which have been consumed by humans for centuries with no ill effects, to blend the properties of the two. This is "forced" genetic mutation. GMO foods have been engineered to have very specific traits and have been around for such a short time no one really knows what their long term effects are. Here is a description of some GMO corn: " Bt corn is a variant of maize, genetically altered to express the bacterial Bt toxin, which is poisonous to insect pests. In the case of corn, the pest is the European corn borer. Over the past couple years they have added traits against Corn ear worm, and Root worm." Would you eat something that is poisonous to insect pests without washing it? You can't "wash out" a gene. One of the reasons the Romans were so successful is that they learned to "control" water and have it work for them with their aqueducts and, yes, lead pipes. People did not just drop dead overnight from drinking water from lead pipes. It took years and even generations. Are you feeling lucky?