Original post made
by PA Resident, Midtown,
on Nov 6, 2012
Heavy corporate spending convinced consumers that this proposition would force corporations to raise food prices.
4 years ago, people vote for Obama for a change, and today people vote for Obama for no change. So what's been changed? Anyone guess?
that really steams me ... how can people be so stupid.
but then again while the country may have the brains to reject people trying to buy high office with their own money, california seems to still be star struck and swayed by money to some extent .... and a lot of money was said to have been brought to bear on defeating this proposition, saying it would cost a lot and raise prices.
I also couldn't understand how 37 did not pass! My only consolation is that food products that do not us GMO ingredients can put that on the label and give us a choice!
Do not understand why 37 failed? Simple enough: Follow the money trail.
Money (in this case Monsanto's) buys elections in this country sadly.
> My only consolation is that food products that do not us GMO ingredients can put that on the label and give us a choice!
That's a real possibility. Of course, you could use price of an item as an indicator: GMO foods will cost less. Buy the expensive choice, if you want to avoid GMO foods. Similar to "organic" vs.
industrail farmed foods.
Because 37 was the reverse of advertising cholesterol free peanut butter. In the case, it was giving a totally-true statement with no meaning in order to gain popularity: in this case, it's giving a somewhat-at-best-true statement with the intention and connotation of being bad.
The exceptions made little to no sense and I think because of the stigma associated to GMO foods even "good GMO" foods would be effected. What about its' effect on golden rice?
With soooooo many exemptions the only real result would have been years of lawsuits and richer lawyers.........
My opinion is that genetic engineering is great for research. Things like engineering bacteria to produce insulin ... things like that - AWESOME USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY. Or algae to produce biodiesel.
But for changing plants, it perhaps might be useful at some point, but the corporate SOBs have spoiled a possibly good technology by environmental and political abuse.
I do not want to see anymore artificial genes in the environment than there already are, in plants, animals or fish ... ie. salmon.
By the metrics these GMO foods have caused more problems than they have solved. Pests and weeds have adapted to the changes in the plants it meant to protect to the point that more pesticides are needed. A totally boondoggle. Our agriculture industry seems to bear no resemblance at all to the farms we all see on the packages of chemical crap they sell us. And now, like the nuclear industry they have poisoned any trust the public has in them even if they did have something great ... as I believe nuclear is.
Putting this stuff in the environment and letting it escape is bad enough, but they had to then persecute innocent farmers trying to make a living and ruin them. Hooking Indian farmers on a technology that did not work for them and has driven significant numbers to suicide is another shame on American military corporatism.
I want to know and be able to ignore and tell others to ignore these bad products and irresponsible companies, and they know labeling will the death of them so they lie, cheat and try to bully their way into the market instead of doing so by goodwill and brand loyalty had they been good corporate citizens.
I am soooo disappointed in Californians! Almost makes me ashamed to admit I was born in CA.
Golden rice should sink or swim on it's own, it should not be forced on anyone, and should have to survive the public perception without the public being lied to or manipulated ... at least any more than we already are. Hiding it and forcing it on people is not the way to the go, and the Republican solution always seems to assume people are stupid so fool or force them to comply.
Perhaps it holds promise, or perhaps it is another wild goose chase, but if these too big to fail and too much money to convince people corporations realized they had to act responsibly it would be an all around net plus for everyone, even them in the long run ... but they never think about the long run.
"With soooooo many exemptions the only real result would have been years of lawsuits and richer lawyers........." Bull. Total red herring.
There are LOTS of mandated nutrition labels already on food. How many lawsuits do you hear about? None. It doesn't happen. So our food is labeled and we know what we buy.
Californians got snookered by big money campaigns driven by large corporations.
"Golden rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of rice. The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A, which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under 5 each year." (from Wikipedia).
What's wrong with GMO crops saving people?
I agree, very disappointing. Those misleading ads on TV really work.
"What's wrong with GMO crops saving people?"
Nothing. What's wrong with labeling them?
Why wouldn't frozen food require GMO labeling???????
>Nothing. What's wrong with labeling them?
If there is nothing unharmful to the consumer's health, why should a needless label be required? If people want to be sure that their food is not GMO, then it is up to those producers (of non-GMO food) to advertize that fact with their own labels.
BTW, most modern foods are genetically modified through selective crop breeding.
"If there is nothing unharmful to the consumer's health,"
That's a pretty big IF
Hey, the free market will decide. If a product kills ya, just stop buying it! Consumers don't need no steeking regulations! If the air is dirty, just stop breathing it!
GM food labeling is required in many countries. The US is behind the ball on this consumer protection issue, as it has been many times in the past. Remember lead in paint for instance? It was banned in the US DECADES after it was banned in Europe.
That's a pretty big IF
If you have prrof that GMO foods are dangerous to consumers, send such proof to the FDA. Until the FDA establishes such facts, there is no need for labelling.
Thank Goodness Prop 37 failed. Failed belief system designed strictly to run some people out of business while enriching others, all the while costing Californians more.
Even the EU rejected the Corn GMO French Study as completely flawed ( as, I might add, I stated).
There is no evidence whatsoever that our GMO foods are dangerous to anyone..in fact, there is only evidence that they are more resistant to diseases and drought. In other words, they can feed more people.