83 replies to this topic

[Hardison]

This November,  California voters will make a decision that could have broad implications for food producers throughout the country: whether or not to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food.

Currently, the proposition is ahead 65%.  A group called No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme is launching a full-court press against the measure beginning this month. The group’s major donors are Monsanto, DuPont,  and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (a trade group that represents the interest of PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg and several other large food and beverage companies). They have a war chest of $25 million dollar.

The complete article is here:

http://www.forbes.co...o-labeling-law/

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I need to read more about this initiative.  I support the idea of labeling GMO food.  However, my newspaper did an editorial that stated stores that sell food could be sued under this law.  I don't believe in making them accountable if the company that makes the product neglects to label them.  I'm not sure if it's true though.  I know how wording gets twisted, so I need to do more research.

I am surprised the commercials haven't started yet.  I figured this would be a huge battle with a lot of money spent on both sides.  We won't get the Obama/Romney ads that other states will, but we'll be getting plenty of others!

  It makes me wonder if the whole "sue a grocery story" thing is true or if it's a distortion of what the initiative really says.

[Hardison]

I haven't heard about the frivolous and shakedown lawsuits except presented by the opposition. The following portion of the bill would seemed to negate that:

Quote

Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

Here's a good started point:
http://ballotpedia.o...red_Food_(2012)

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Thanks for pointing that out!  I went back to read what my newspaper has published on the topic.  To be fair, they've covered both sides of the initiative.  In one editorial, they point out what you have noted.  Agribusiness is fighting this with all their might.

I'll check out the website that you've linked.  Usually, I wait until I get the state voter guide, then I use the League of Women Voters Smart Voter Guide website to work through the initiatives.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Similar topics- (I think most of us here have disdain for monsanto/dow/basf and bayer)


http://www.altenergy...n-gmo-labeling/
http://www.altenergy...he-evil-empire/
http://www.altenergy...opic/1550-gmos/
http://www.altenergy...1-gmo-suicides/
http://www.altenergy...-sleeping-with/

The Just Label It campaign is helping in the fight. Info on link.
http://justlabelit.org/

[steph84]

I just heard about this this morning on Facebook. I live in California and really need to read more about this so I can get GMO labeling out there. The sad thing is that so many people will still eat it because it is more affordable.

[Hardison]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 24 August 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

  Usually, I wait until I get the state voter guide, then I use the League of Women Voters Smart Voter Guide website to work through the initiatives.

I usually do too, but I only recently learned about Prop 37 and wanted to get the details sooner. I wanted to get the word out about this prop.

Shortpoet-GTD, on 25 August 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Similar topics- (I think most of us here have disdain for monsanto/dow/basf and bayer)


The Just Label It campaign is helping in the fight. Info on link.
http://justlabelit.org/

Thanks. I didn't know about these guys.

steph84, on 25 August 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

The sad thing is that so many people will still eat it because it is more affordable.

Unfortunately, this is very true.

[FlanneryCam]

Holy moly! That's a lot of money to be spending to help destroy the environment and ensure that people are eating foods that could cause them to get diseases.

I know that I would love seeing when foods contain GMOs. It would make grocery shopping less of a mystery. I know I can't always buy organic because of my budget, but I would like to be reminded of the choice when I shop.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

FlanneryCam, on 26 August 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Holy moly! That's a lot of money to be spending to help destroy the environment and ensure that people are eating foods that could cause them to get diseases.

I know that I would love seeing when foods contain GMOs. It would make grocery shopping less of a mystery. I know I can't always buy organic because of my budget, but I would like to be reminded of the choice when I shop.

But if labels were truthful, we'd be down to eating local carrots and potatoes and not much else.
Grocery store ad-only one cashier on duty but no waiting!

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I've been reading about this measure since Spring when I heard it qualified for the November ballot.  In some ways, I was surprised that I had not heard more opposition.  I'm guessing that come September we will be bombarded with erroneous anti-ads.

At least with labels you are given a choice.  Isn't that what Americans are always yammering about--having a choice?  Many of us have to make food choices based on dietary reasons and on price.  It only seems right that we know what we are putting in our bodies.  It really bothers me that they can do it without telling us.  I don't think that is right.  No one has yet proven to me that those Monsanto tomatoes that have been modified so that they stay ripe longer are nutritional sound.  They might be brighter colored longer, but do they really hold the vitamins and minerals longer?

I've never heard of the label it campaign.  I'm going to check that website out.

[Hardison]

I only recently learned about the proposition. I have been telling everyone since I heard about it. It was one heck of a battle to allow dairy products made from bovine growth hormone free cows to be labeled as such. If the proposition passes in California, then it will be easier to pass in other parts of the country. I expect the war to begin in a few weeks. I really hope the proposition passes.

[kalasin]

Monsanto sucks.  It sickens me that they are still in business.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

kalasin, on 27 August 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Monsanto sucks.

That bears repeating.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I saw the first interview with the "anti" side on the news last night.  They are going to take the side that if this law passes all there will be is frivolous lawsuits.  Their other argument is that it is inconsistent because it doesn't cover everything we eat and consume.  The woman gave some bizarre which I can't even remember.  One of them had to do with dog food, which I'm pretty sure people don't eat on a regular basies except in sad cases of poverty.

So, my guess is they are going to try to muddy the water and make it sound so confusing that no one would vote for.  It worked for the tobacco tax that failed last Spring.  However, there is no tax associated with this.  Californians are much more eager to pass things that won't necessarily affect them financially.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Insert chemical companies names here_________=

[Hardison]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 28 August 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

I saw the first interview with the "anti" side on the news last night.  They are going to take the side that if this law passes all there will be is frivolous lawsuits.  Their other argument is that it is inconsistent because it doesn't cover everything we eat and consume.  The woman gave some bizarre which I can't even remember.  One of them had to do with dog food, which I'm pretty sure people don't eat on a regular basies except in sad cases of poverty.

So, my guess is they are going to try to muddy the water and make it sound so confusing that no one would vote for.  It worked for the tobacco tax that failed last Spring.  However, there is no tax associated with this.  Californians are much more eager to pass things that won't necessarily affect them financially.

Fortunately, I missed the interview. So that's the game plan. It's a bit different than the tobacco tax though. I do agree that Californians are much more likely to pass this law. I know everyone that I'm talking to about it, supports it.

Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto about CA Prop 37

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Related-
http://djournal.com/...KjJm-ow.twitter

[Hardison]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 29 August 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Related-
http://djournal.com/...KjJm-ow.twitter

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Hardison, thanks for that link.  I posted it to my Facebook page so people can be aware of the fight.  I'm glad the pro side is getting a chance to answer some of the claims against the proposition.

I like how Monsanto claims that the testing shows there are no health risks when very little testing has been done.  They still cannot show what happens when these products are consumed over a lifetime.

What rarely gets brought out is how these genetically modified crops are growing in places they were never planted.  They are taking over native crops, too.

I guess I am one of those people who doesn't see the need for genetically modified food.  Can they prove that tomato that stays ripe so much longer has any health value or does it just look pretty?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 29 August 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

What rarely gets brought out is how these genetically modified crops are growing in places they were never planted.  They are taking over native crops, too.

FTC-check out Food, Inc.
You can buy the hour long version on You Tube, or just watch many video parts there. Just type in Food, Inc.
http://www.youtube.c...c&feature=mv_sr
Some additional notes from PBS that aired it last year.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Food,_Inc.