GMO labeling measure receives prop number for November ballot

examiner.com ^ | July 10, 2012 | Judson Parker

[quimby]

California’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act will be on November’s ballot as Proposition 37, according to proposition numbers released late yesterday by the California Secretary of State’s office. The Right to Know measure calls for labeling genetically engineered foods and, if passed, would be the first law in the United States requiring labeling of a wide range of genetically engineered foods.

“Prop 37 is about our fundamental right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children,” said Stacy Malkan, a spokesperson for the California Right to Know campaign. “Given the broad support in the state—and across the country—for the right to know if our food is genetically engineered, we are confident California voters will make history by passing Prop 37 in November.”

Polls show nearly unanimous support across the political spectrum for labeling of genetically engineered foods. Nine out of ten voters in the U.S. and in California back labeling, according to recent polls (see Mellman 2012, Reuters 2010, Zogby 2012). An April poll by San Francisco TV station KCBS found that 91% of Californians back labeling.

[quimby]

We should be able to choose if we want to continue to be guinea pigs.

[UnwashedPeasant]

This is good news. If it passes in the giant market of CA, and if an activist judge does not shoot it down, the labeling will become effective nationwide.

Too much hassle to have CA-specific labels.

[quimby]

The prop is kind of an “end around” the combination of big govt and big agriculture to literally cram it down our throats. Let the people decide!

[Aussiebabe]

Yeah, just another way that Californians have caused items to be more expensive in the rest of the USA....there is always a cost. First it was automotive standards and now food...but, never mind, the economy in the USA is so good you can afford to pay another 20% for your food.

[quimby]

Your argument is the same that was made when ingredient labeling was introduced. what does that cost us? Very little. But the benefits are worth it.

This proposal does not force you to buy any type of food, just labels it.

Do you work for a big AG company? Or do you just like doing genetic experiments on yourself?

[Vendome]

I’m down with this...

[quimby]

You wrote:

never mind, the economy in the USA is so good you can afford to pay another 20% for your food.

Hey, Aussiebabe, you all tend to exaggerate down under? I know we American dudes tend to...

[sphinx]

The problem is, this kind of labelling has nothing to do with health risks. It's all about feeding a scare campaign by the activist groups, many of which are opposed to modern production agriculture, and the organic lobby, which is peddling high cost products and wants to spook consumers about competitors.

If informed consent is the objective, why don't we put a label on all organic products saying "no added nutritional value; fertilized with manure; high risk of e coli and insect parts contamination." But no -- the organic lobby wants consumers to think they're buying a superior product, which is not the case.

Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers? The cry will go up, "The public has a right to know." Well fine -- base product labelling on demonstrable risk. If the labelling is science based, GM crops (which are thoroughly tested before coming to market) will be so far down the list that they'll never get labelled.

The campaign is about creating a superstition. If you are superstitious, go to the store and buy organic. Personally, I avoid organics. I dislike paying a premium to hucksters, and while I'm not excessively squeamish, I prefer not putting poop on my food. I know that's how food was grown for thousands of years, but we have better methods today.

[rigelkentaurus]

I’m curious, maybe someone can help me. Just what is the definition of genetically engineered crops? Aren’t all hybrids genetically engineered? Does this include crops which were modified in fields selectively over several generations to have certain traits (color, taste, growing season)? Are any food crops grown today the same genetically as they were say 1000 years ago?

I’m just confused about what is and is not genetically engineered?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This is one of the few forms of needed regulation out there.

That is, agribusiness and food processing has long been problematic in putting out even dangerous substances in foods, and used government to conceal the fact.

Much of it started with the Chicago meat packing plants, that had a horrific reputation around the world for making and selling tainted and adulterated products.

Then there was a big scandal over the use of poisonous copper sulfate added to canned peas, to make them greener.

The dairy industry bitterly fought margarine, and in several states required that it could only be sold plain, with dye packets to color it yellow added by the consumer.

Farm produce was fertilized with plant estrogen (very similar to human estrogen), to increase yield and the size of the profitable parts, seeds and fruit. This is still done.

Add to that the *improper* use of antibiotics with animals, that when properly used is good for both producers and consumers, but when improperly used can create drug resistant bacteria.

Then, because GM food is patented, if a GM crop is planted upwind of a non-GM crop and pollinates it, that crop becomes the property of the GM company, based on court decisions.

And once in use, GM pollen rapidly spreads throughout a large region, essentially “infecting” other plants of that type, for better or worse, until there are no non-GM ‘tainted’ crops left.

And the science of GM is still in its infancy, so some potentially disastrous consequences are still possible. One such was the effort to enrich soil with GM bacteria, which was so effective it wiped out the other essential soil bacteria in the (extremely fortunately) isolated soil test bed. Were it to have “gotten loose”, it could have devastated agriculture around the world, making vast amounts of arable soil infertile.

[quimby]

Thank for your reply. But I respectfully disagree.

You wrote:

The problem is, this kind of labeling has nothing to do with health risks.

It has everything to do with health risks, at least for me. People and groups may have a number of motives and interests. I noticed a number of groups listed at the end of the article which i dont normally agree. Also the organic food lobby is there. But what about the big agriculture companies and their motives?

None of these motives are my motives. I simply do not want to be a participant in a research project. And I see this proposition as a simple way to give the power to the individual to choose.

Further on you wrote:

Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers?

How do you know the questions are bogus? This technology is so new, no one knows what if any long term effects may be. Do you really want to trust the large corporation or government studies? Are you really so sure there are no long term health effects? I am not. Again I say, let the people decide.

[quimby]

Thank for your reply. But I respectfully disagree.

You wrote:

The problem is, this kind of labeling has nothing to do with health risks.

It has everything to do with health risks, at least for me. People and groups may have a number of motives and interests. I noticed a number of groups listed at the end of the article which i dont normally agree. Also the organic food lobby is there. But what about the big agriculture companies and their motives?

None of these motives are my motives. I simply do not want to be a participant in a research project. And I see this proposition as a simple way to give the power to the individual to choose.

Further on you wrote:

Most consumers will buy on price, taste, and nutritional value unless they are scared away. Why feed bogus scaremongers?

How do you know the questions are bogus? This technology is so new, no one knows what if any long term effects may be. Do you really want to trust the large corporation or government studies? Are you really so sure there are no long term health effects? I am not. Again I say, let the people decide.

[quimby]

I found this at wikipedia:

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms that have inserted DNA from a different species. GMOs are the constituents of genetically modified foods.

Selective breeding or pollination will not produce these transgenetic organisms. One of the strategies of the big seed corporations is to introduce compounds into the seed which are the same or very similar as insecticides which are sprayed onto crops. There may be good reasons for the research, the proposition does not limit research. I just dont want to be a participant of that research.

[UnwashedPeasant]

"Yeah, just another way that Californians have caused items to be more expensive in the rest of the USA"

You would still have an option to eat toxic, artificial food. There is always a market for cheap food. People already willingly eat a lot of toxins that appear on labels.