Posted on 10/21/2012 8:06:01 PM PDT by RushingWater
Interesting how you mention DuPont. Remember when they rigged the banning of their own product (freon) "just to keep you safe"? Feeling better with HCFC instead? You know it is more toxic. This will work the same way, exactly the way it did with Prop 65.
>> “Does Prop 65 inform you...” <<
.
Complete smoke screen.
Prop 65 was never intended to inform, only to obfuscate.
Prop 65 came from the opposite end of the political spectrum from 37.
Prop 37 was supported by staunch conservative, health oriented orgs, not marxist obstructionist aparatchicks, and it arose out of strong evidence of hazards and judicial foul play.
>> “What it does is give companies like Monsanto cover” <<
.
Bullcrap! - Monsanto is the opposition (and useful idiots that love their busswords).
The GMO products available are essentially untested, and to a large degree untestable, because the effects can be generations away.
Nobody should be using these seeds without at least a two mile barrier, and legal protection for the small, honest farmers that surround them.
A little of the truth is coming out. It is admitted that a globalist corporation rigged a ban of one of its own products because the patent was running out. They then produced a substitute, with a new patent under their ownership. Nice play to keep the gravy train rolling, eh?
I fail to see how making a lying predatory globalist corporation disclose information about its product is a bad thing.
What happens when the patent runs out on some GMO crops? Will the predatory corporations get them banned so only the ‘new’ GMO crops can be planted?
The situation reeks.
>> Remember when they rigged the banning of their own product (freon) “just to keep you safe”? <<
.
Now follow that logic, and show us how Monsanto could possibly benefit fron 37.
We the people will benefit, and especially the small land owners that are being crushed by Monsanto’s legal team. That is the 10,000 pound elephant in this room.
.
Exactly like prop 37.
Prop 65 came from the opposite end of the political spectrum from 37.
Last time I checked, the anti-GMO crowd originated with Greenpeace.
Prop 37 was supported by staunch conservative, health oriented orgs, not marxist obstructionist aparatchicks, and it arose out of strong evidence of hazards and judicial foul play.
And that is exactly what you'll get with labels so ubiquitous that you won't know a Bt product from something that was modified for an early harvest.
Give me private third-party verification with accountability for their services every time.
>> “The situation reeks.” <<
.
As Limbaugh is so fond of saying, “Follow the Money!”
.
The GMO industry has spent massive amount of money in CA campaign trying to counter it.
Easy. They'll invest their ample dollars in Mexican ag land selling trainloads of pesticides for "GMO free" products while still producing all the nasty stuff they want because it shares the same label with benign modifications. Meanwhile your local farmer goes broke. They'll get higher prices with the gun of starvation to your head.
My car's engine is not my body. I can get a new engine. Also, does the warning label enable me to find a competing gasoline product that does not contain those additives?
I understand your concerns about treating all risks equally, but that's not the concern being voiced here or by the CA GOP. If they want to expand the language to incorporate the data you refer to, more power to them, but steps need to be taken. I don't believe for a second that Monsanto or any similar companies have our health interests in mind.
If it was intended to be truly effective, it would apply to everything you put into your mouth.
They could call it the Lewinski Law.
Are all GMOs bad for you? No. Some are. This law bundles them both together. Worse, California ag is so regulated for pesticides that GMOs have been a godsend to them. Take that away and Mexican or Brazilian producers will happily defraud you. Not only do local producers go broke, but the big GMO producers will corner what is left of the market.
Were I Monsanto, I would be putting money into anti-37 coffers just to sucker folks afraid of their GMO products. It puts Monsanto on an even footing with producers like Zaiger, who are busy simply making good tasting fruit that one can harvest all summer.
The Catholic church has already instructed catholic bioengineers that it is morally wrong to use HEK 293 embryonic cells in research because it goes against the teaching of the church on abortion. It follows that the faithful should not use products(Pepsi) based on that cell line for the same reason.
These predatory corporations can violate all ethics and teachings of a faith group, and the nifty thing is, they can do it without informing their ‘customer’ that s/he will be committing a profound act against their faith by consuming the bio engineered product.
If we allow these corporations the ability to hide what they put into products, the near future could well be human genes spliced into food animals, that humans would then consume unaware.
An abominable future is in the making, if controls cannot be placed to thwart it.
No, but you do inhale unburned gasoline. Everybody does.
If they want to expand the language to incorporate the data you refer to, more power to them, but steps need to be taken.
Ever heard of UL? They somehow verify production of all sorts of products for your safety without a government agency telling them to do it. The UPC tests your plumbing. The ASTM designs the test methods for the cement in the concrete on the bridges you drive over. All of these are about risk to health and safety.
It is the existence of a police empowered government risk management monopoly that precludes similar private services. Unfortunately, that means is so easily corrupted that you see dangerous vaccines being forced on the general public, or far more hazardous goods from abroad holing a preferential place on the store shelf. In fact, it is because of government regulation that Monsanto can get away with a product like Bt corn. USDA approval of the product makes suing them VERY expensive.
...It is the first to look at the impact of eating a GM diet over a lifetime in rats, which is two years. To date, safety assessments of GM crops have been based on rat feeding trials lasting 90 days.
I live in the country on 106 acres in Texas .
It is very rural and all the animals are big.
The reason they are all big is because they eat all the smaller animals. I have been puting out corn etc for the animals for 5 years on a regular basis.
I always know when I have bought gmo corn because these hungry animals turn down the gmo corn.
Actually, I’m not so concerned with the religious angle of this, because that which is not done from the heart is not sinful.
Actually, I not so concerned with religious aspects of this, because that which is not from the heart cannot be sinful.
What we need, and what we are being systematically denied, is information, and legal protection from Monsanto’s vicious legal team.
I said use logic, not LSD.
Non GMO corn is no longer available in California stores.
You have to go to roadside stands like on Sherman island to buy it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.