Big Agriculture and food companies are shelling out gobs of cash ahead of November's election to convince Californians to vote against a proposed law that would require businesses to label products that contain genetically modified organisms.
Proponents of Proposition 37 applaud the strict labeling requirements and say it will help consumers make better purchasing decisions. Opponents say that the labels are misleading and overly burdensome to food producers. Not only that, they claim, but compliance would be costly -- an expense that would likely drive up the price of goods in the grocery store.
The money is behind the opposition, literally.
Prop 37's opponents include Monsanto (MON), PepsiCo (PEP), Coca-Cola (KO), Hershey (HSY), and Kellogg (K). Together these companies and other large agricultural concerns have already spent millions to fight the proposed labeling law.
Labeling Purity
If Proposition 37 becomes law, raw GMO produce would be required to carry a label stating that it is "genetically engineered," and all processed foods containing GMOs would be required to be labeled as "partially produced with genetic engineering," or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering." It will also prohibit the use of labels such as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," and "all natural" in foods with GMO ingredients.
In addition, Prop 37 would require farmers to maintain traceability records on foods that lack labels alerting consumers to the possible presence of GMOs. But suppose a GMO seed gets into a non-GMO field -- which does happen. Under Prop 37, it will be illegal to have even trace amounts of GMOs in packaged food that isn't labeled as containing them, even accidentally. Contrast this with the European Union, which has a 0.9% threshold for unintended GMOs.
Prop 37 would also make it easier for consumers to win lawsuits against food producers by eliminating the requirement to show specific damages resulting from the labeling violation.
Finally, organic foods are exempt from Prop 37's labeling requirement, despite the possibility that they can also contain unintended traces of GMO ingredients.
What's So Bad About That?
Opponents claim that Prop 37's labeling requirements would mislead consumers by falsely implying that GMOs are harmful to human health, despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization have concluded GMOs pose no risks to human health.
Some claim that Prop 37's zero-tolerance threshold for accidental GMOs, combined with the low burden of proof for consumers to win lawsuits for the mislabeling of food, will actually undermine the ability of consumers to avoid GMOs. This camp argues that, because it is nearly impossible to comply with such a high standard, food companies will simply label everything as containing GMOs in order to lower litigation risk. They also claim that this law privileges organic foods, which are exempt from the labeling requirement despite the fact that they can also contain trace amounts of accidental GMOs.
But it's not just about labels; it's about setting a precedent.
Opponents aren't just worried that the law will drive California consumers away from their products. They also fear that the rest of the country will follow California's lead and give the anti-GMO movement traction in other states.
Do you think Prop 37's requirements are good for consumers? Do you want the movement to spread to your home state? Chime in below!
I am opposed to legislation such as this. GMO crops are here to stay as long as they confer advantages to growers and as long as there is no proven health risks. Statements such as:
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
it will be illegal to have even trace amounts of GMOs in packaged food that isn't labeled as containing them, even accidentally
would put an unrealistic burden on growers. If people want organic, non-GOM food then they should be prepared to accept food with more insect and disease damage and pay a whole lot more for it. Personally, we have a large garden which is grown organically and without any GMO traits.
Can this be ascertained this early in the game? I am not sure I'd be happy about my tomatoes having fish genes.. I don't even like it when my mom purchases farmed fish.. I refuse to eat it. I now only worry whether the organic I get has some questionable components and how prohibitive in cost it is.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Can this be ascertained this early in the game? I am not sure I'd be happy about my tomatoes having fish genes..
There is always some risk with new things, but my point was that there are no proven health risks to commercialized GMOs. One of the pesticides that is labeled for organic food production is Bacillus thuringiensis a bacteria that disrupts the gut of only specific insect pests (moth larvae) that ingest it.
Bacillus thuringiensis, also called Bt, is an active ingredient in some organic insecticides. This naturally occurring bacterium is a disease to insects, according to Colorado State University. Bt is safe for use in the garden, as it does not harm people or animals. Bt is lethal to insects and degrades in sunlight. It lasts about a week and must be reapplied for continued effectiveness. It does not kill the insect immediately. It takes more than a couple of days for that to occur, but the infected insect no longer feeds on the plant after infection.
Nearly all field corn and cotton grown in the USA has been genetically engineered to express the protein that this bacterium produces that is toxic to these insect pests. These crops, as well as soybean, have also been modified to detoxify or tolerate herbicides that kill weeds, but don't harm the crop.
Agriculture is big business now and without current production practices, including GMOs, prices would be higher and products would be inferior to what is presently available in grocery stores. I venture to say that most people know next to zilch about growing their own food and are totally dependent on others for their food. With all due respect, it is fine and dandy to get on a soap box and vociferously condemn biotech companies and their products, but what alternative do you propose for how to feed the millions upon millions of people who live in concrete and steel cities?
know next to zilch about growing their own food and are totally dependent on others for their food
That's absolutely the truth.. Sadder still is that not only are we consumerists but most people I'd venture to say and from a childhood hour are trained to be helpless and let someone else do the work for them. The technology generation is so that they're sitting in front of something all day getting all sorts of input and outputting nothing. Everything that Allah swt created us to do we don't seem to be doing except of course act on base instincts because to not do so would be hateful in the eyes of this new world we find ourselves in!
I can't claim to know the first thing about agriculture and would comment only on that no drug or gene therapy that I have personally learned of is without some sort of adverse effect and I'd hate for that to infiltrate to foods that I am ingesting everyday and I am not just talking about the use of pesticide but active gene manipulation between plants and animals.. although I assume that's how pesticides are actually used now a days and not in the form of sprays as I'd like to imagine.
Last edited by جوري; 08-31-2012 at 06:05 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Personally I used to be scared of "processed food" until I learned that not all of em are that bad in moderate doses. But still I would really like to know what I am putting into my mouth. Even though perhaps at this current stage the foods are all well and good what if in the future things are different :S
I'd hate for that to infiltrate to foods that I am ingesting everyday and I am not just talking about the use of pesticide but active gene manipulation between plants and animals
I understand your concerns, but I believe that you are missing the real danger in biotechnology related to food production. Although I personally believe that GMO's are safe, I also know that there is an insane amount of money being made by selling GMO seed to growers. With that said, there has been a dramatic increase in competition to capture a portion of that market share and an integral component of preserving the value of these investments is governmental backing of patents to protect intellectual property. The real danger in my opinion is the patenting of herloom varieties beyond these GMO traits per the attached video.
Wow that's disturbing - I think I might check out his other books
Wonder if they'll attempt population control with this as well..
The govt. is getting so that you've no rights whatsoever
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Wow that's disturbing - I think I might check out his other books
I don't know if the patenting will extend to conventional heirloom seed or even to native genes from them, but I see a danger if this is allowed. The real issue is to be totally reliant on a corporation for one's food and for them to literally own the seed is to own the food and the ability to control its production. Agriculture (from input provider, to grower, to processor, to merchant, etc) nowadays is all big business and business is all about making money. Decisions in a capitalistic system are made exclusively on how best to maximize profits. The role that governement plays is holding the reigns back on capitalism such that the inherent greed doesn't run to the extreme to the detriment of the environment, society and humanity. However, corporations always scheme to limit government (through special interest lobbying and campaign contributions) because these regulations hamper the ability to make profits. This is exactly what happened in the banking industry that led to the economic crisis of 2008 and to the current precarious financial situation.
Wonder if they'll attempt population control with this as well..
It is not within the realm of corporations to limit world population, merely to maximize profits. With that said though corporate decisions are made without any concerns for humanity or the environment or, for that matter, even future profits - what matters most is short term profitability and the ability to make a dollar today.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Big Agriculture and 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks