kinda like the "Trophy's" they hand out after all the soccer games where nobody wins, but everybody is a winner... they lose their meaning when everything has one
Posted on 10/20/2013 5:39:55 PM PDT by djf
Initiative 522 in Washington state gets voted on in the general election in November.
It would require MOST items sold in supermarkets to plainly label "May contain GMO products".
Opposition has been fierce, as it was in California when a similar initiative was proposed - and lost out.
The anti-disclosure people set up a PAC to front the advertising campaign, and refused to say who was what, so a lawsuit was filed.
The PAC lost the suit - and was forced to tell who had contributed what.
So here you go, folks - These are the businesses who don't want you to know what is in your food, and the amounts contributed:
PepsiCo, Inc. – $1,620,899
Nestle USA Inc. – $1,052,743
The Coca-Cola Company – $1,047,332
General Mills Inc. – $598,819
ConAgra Foods – $285,281
Campbell Soup Company – $265,140
The Hershey Company – $248,305
The J.M. Smucker Company – $241,091
Kellogg Company – $221,852
Mondelez Global LLC – $144,895
Flowers Foods Inc. – $141,288
Abbott Nutrition – $127,459
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC – $120,846
Dean Foods Company – $120,245
McCormick & Company Inc – $102,208
Land O’Lakes, Inc. – $99,803
Cargill Inc. – $98,601
The Hillshire Brands Company – $97,398
Bunge North America, Inc. – $94,993
Bimbo Bakeries USA – $94,693
Del Monte Foods Company – $86,576
Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. – $55,313
Hormel Foods Corporation – $52,908
Bumble Bee Foods LLC – $36,073
Welch Foods, Inc. $28,859
Shearer’s Foods, Inc. $25,251
Rich Products Corporation – $24,049
Clement Pappas & Company Inc. – $21,043
Sunny Delight Beverages Company – $21,043
Bush Brothers & Company – $16,233
Knouse Foods Cooperative Inc. – $14,429
The Clorox Company – $12,024
Bruce Foods Corporation – $3,006
Moody Dunbar Inc. – $1,804
Now 522 may be flawed. But in my mind, it's a start and can be fine-tuned. One of the anti commercials calls it "pointless..."
It's "pointless" that you know what's in your food? POINTLESS????
HOW DARE THEY SAY THAT!!!
Anyways, just my 2 cents...
Well, there are a couple problems here.
You mention “the fear of GMO food...”...
Fear can be one thing, or it can be called flat out hysteria. I consider the whole (or 99%) of the current Gluten thing to be hysteria.
From what I’ve read, if someone has gluten sensitivities and they eat gluten products, THEY KNOW IT REAL SOON!
So if you see a blog where someone writes “I went gluten free and after 2 months I feel so much better” they are literally deceiving themselves, their diet may have been a problem, but it was not gluten.
And look. As far as GMO’s go, knowing that a food is or might be GMO tells you almost nothing.
What does that mean? Glow in the dark Mac’n Cheese?
Higher protein content? More drought resistant plants?
These things are probably even if not beneficial probably innocuous.
BUT!!!!
If the food is one that has had BT genes inserted, I WANT TO KNOW!
If they have been genetically tweaked to be “Round-Up Ready” I WANT TO KNOW!
I guess I am in favor of putting the info out there and letting the market decide rather than never telling your consumers “Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!”
A little smiley face GM sticker on all products should cover it. Reminds me of the California may contain substaces that cause cancer. The warning is on everything in California.
Just wondering, Which is better, GMO food or mass starvation on a global scale? ALL corn, ALL soybeans, and much of the rice grown today are GMO and have been since the 1930’s. Corn yield in 1930 was 30 bushels per acre, Corn yield today is 140-145 bushels per acre. Population in 1930 was about 2 billion, population today is over 7 billion.
Are you the one who gets to choose which 5 billion die?
kinda like the "Trophy's" they hand out after all the soccer games where nobody wins, but everybody is a winner... they lose their meaning when everything has one
Nowhere have I said “Do away with GMO food.”
Or “Ban GMO food”
Nowhere.
Well, since it is no great burden/problem for manufactures, how about making the products that have no GMO post that fact?
Exactly. I’m absolutely shocked at most of the comments here. Genetic modification is not cross-pollination by any stretch of the imagination! People should watch the movie “Food, Inc.” on YouTube. Farmers are being sued by Monsanto if they even act like they’re going to re-use or wash seeds from previous years crops. And of course, the farmers don’t have the $$ to fight a big corporation like Monsanto so they use the GM seeds that Monsanto has patented since they don’t have a choice.
Hardly any companies use “real” sugar cane anymore to sweeten their products. They use GM corn to make High Fructose Corn Syrup to sweeten soft drinks, etc. Which is why Pepsi and Coke are at the top of the list. Unbelievable that folks don’t know this or don’t seem to be worried about it.
Thanks for the info.
Hope it passes.
Yet you demonize the very concept of GMOs by demanding sequestration and new regulations. Many others on the anti- GMO bandwagon are demanding the elimination of GMOs. Your demands are merely a matter of scale, not a difference in philosophy. Indeed, you use the same progressive/alinski tactics of demonizing those that disagree with you through your publishing the list of “bad companies” that don’t want the added cost of added regulation. Would it not serve the same purpose to keep the current system where companies use the “Non-GMO” label as a positive marketing tool? Why do you believe that using government force is better?
WA PingI support labels that tell us whats in our food. But, I don't support this idea.
The thing that bothers me is the slippery slope created by environmental radicals when they make laws for us. If this passes we will be the only state with such a law and every qualifying product shipped here will have to have special labels and special pricing, of course.
How long before this includes dry goods and leads to things like banning leather or other substances? I do not trust a partisan legislature and their ability to expand and alter laws in the dark of night. I think this initiative has been promoted under false premise.
Read my post at post 42 again. I think I have been pretty fair. I’m not some whack-job back-to-the-garden leftie.
You, however, simply want to be combative.
I ain’t got the time.
Been a while since I got one of your Washington state updates.
Even though I live here, you often find state news I have not heard about.
By the way, for those who don't know, Washington state also has a very IMMEDIATE food problem!
Most of our major grocery chains are unionized, and a strike has been called for TODAY at 7PM.
The Teamsters have agreed to not cross the picket lines.
They will drive their trucks to the stores, but park in the street.
Non-union drivers will have to back into the loading docks and non-union labor will have to unload the trucks.
Looks like I'll be eating all those canned goods I stored away for the long delayed Seattle EARTHQUAKE!
Some of the local chains are non-union.
Haggen Foods (formerly Tops) is non-union.
If you have a Winco foods near you, they should be unaffected.
There are a couple others.
Sorry, Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand why you think that forcing people to do what you want through government regulation is a good thing.
I don’t see a philosophical difference between this and obamacare.
Looks like even Mexico “gets it”. They’re banning GMO corn in their country.
Well, it’s not forcing “people” to do anything. A corporation may be a “person”, but it is never one of the “people”.
And I have tried to make clear that it IS NOT my personal opinion that counts here, there are both PROS and CONS to gmo foods.
A corporation gets a “license” to do something. A “license” is government approval to do something that otherwise might be illegal. Corporations, by getting “licenses”, agree to the regulation of government.
For instance I as a people could not just start making tons of potato salad and selling it on the sidewalk. And we know why. Because I might kill a bunch of folks with food poisoning.
And I think most people would see and agree that those regulations are not only necessary, but reasonable. Corporations get licenses to make food not just for their families or their friends, but for MILLIONS of people, people who have all types of conditions and sensitivities.
Diabetics need to know about sugar. People with various allergies might need to know about peanuts or other items. People with high blood pressure need to know about salt content. The list goes on and on.
Remember - corporations DO NOT know you. They have no idea at all what your likes, dislikes, medical conditions or whatever are. They would, I am sure, rather not care at all, and at the same time willingly accept NO LIABILITY if you eat something you are sensitive to.
With that in mind, if they want to accept no liability, it is reasonable and even prudent to honestly state on the label what is in foods.
If it’s not bad, it can’t hurt.
If it’s a good thing, it will help!
I am old enough to vaguely remember talking with my mom about the introduction of margarine. When she was young, margarine came with a tab of food coloring in it so you could crush the tab, and that would turn the margarine from white to a more butter colored item. At that time it was ILLEGAL to sell margarine that was artificially colored to look like butter.
We’re talking 70, maybe 80 years ago!
And now what are we finding out?
Margarine is primarily hydrolyzed vegetable fats, created at high temperatures and pressures. A more modern name for margarines are the so called “trans-fats”.
And they are not very good for you!
So I don’t take anything at face value. Put the info out there and let the people decide.
Because someday, it might actually be part of peoples medical history (and be very relevant) to ask them “Have you ever eaten any GMO licorice?”
I read an article about the genes in BT actually jumping into the host DNA. I know enough about the subject that it scared the crap out of me!
In this case, the PAC that was started by the corporations (and the corporations admitted this in court) was originally started to HIDE THE NAMES OF THE DONORS from the public.
The fact that they feel they have something to hide should make any reasonable person ask wassup with that?
Genetic engineering is in it’s infancy. Yes, it could increase yields hugely. Yes, it could decrease cost.
But at the same time, it could pollute the gene pool - not just for this year, but FOREVER. It could even cause new diseases to emerge that have never been seen in the history of man.
So, sorry for calling you combative, but in my mind I am the conservative one, urging full disclosure and a very, very, very cautious approach.
;-)
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.