« previous   misc   next »

CA and Why I'm Voting Yes on 32, 35, 37.


By FortWayne   Follow   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 1:25am PST   1,993 views   31 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

Here are all the props, just a link from the internet.
http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/ballot-measures/california-propositions-guide-2012-cheat-sheet.html

32 - because no one should have their paychecks confiscated without their consent.

35 - I think human trafficking needs the highest penalties one can have.

37 - because we all have the right to know what we are buying.

The rest are a No vote for me, because I either don't support or don't understand them.

Comments 1-31 of 31     Last »

HEY YOU   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 1:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 1

No Conservative can vote for 37. That would place another regulation on Private Enterprise(job creators). More big govt. interference.
Conservatives-Big Business comes before the Public.

MsBennet   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 1:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

They should not force GMO labels on food. If foods aren't GM'd, they can label as such, just like "organic" is labeled.

FortWayne   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 3:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 3

MsBennet says

They should not force GMO labels on food. If foods aren't GM'd, they can label as such, just like "organic" is labeled.

I have a response to that.

Normal does not need to be labeled, it's the abnormal that should be. GMO is non standard, which means we all should have a right to know what we are getting.

FortWayne   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 3:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 4

HEY YOU says

No Conservative can vote for 37.

Conservatives are not anti all government. You are confusing anarchists with conservatives.

Honest Abe   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 7:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 5

No on 37? Then go ahead and ask your doctor which cancer is right for you.

dublin hillz   Tue, 6 Nov 2012, 7:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

No on 32. Koch brother sam walton thug terrorists!

FortWayne   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 7

I guess my vote did not match the rest of the state. 30 passed and 32 failed. I'm 0 for 2 here.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:35am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 8

Honest Abe says

No on 37? Then go ahead and ask your doctor which cancer is right for you.

Do you know what genetically modified means?

DNA isn't going to cause you cancer, even monster DNA created in a lab. Here's a great paper on the subject:

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-5/5-1-ingested-food-and-dna/

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:46am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 9

iwog says

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-5/5-1-ingested-food-and-dna/

That article is bullshit. It is true that we don't know if and what will happen, but to say DNA fragments have no impact is like saying the earth is flat. Some DNA fragments can and do elicit unwanted immune responses and chronic immune activation/inflammation, please read up on some real, non-FDA approved science before trying to lecture others. Furthermore not all possible problems come from DNA fragment, there are also other properties of the plants harmful to animals (so they harvest more) that may or may not be completely broken down before it is ingested by humans.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 10

mell says

That article is bullshit. It is true that we don't know if and what will happen, but to say DNA fragments have no impact is like saying the earth is flat.

You realize that DNA is broken up into tiny pieces before being digested completely? That never before seen random sequences appear and disappear by the trillions every single day in every one of us?

Food allergy has nothing to do with DNA and is a reaction against proteins. There are no DNA fragments that elicit unwanted immune responses.

Did you just make up all this shit or do you have a source?

YesYNot   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

Most GMO food comes along with a nice dose of Roundup. Otherwise, why bother with the modification. In addition, there are social considerations (Monsanto lawsuits) associated with buying GMO food, and there are sustainability / food security issues that go along with food monocultures. So, there are reasons that people might want to know if their food is GMO even if there is no saftey issue with the inserted gene. I don't see any reason that people who want to know should be prevented from knowing.

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

iwog says

mell says

That article is bullshit. It is true that we don't know if and what will happen, but to say DNA fragments have no impact is like saying the earth is flat.

You realize that DNA is broken up into tiny pieces before being digested completely? That never before seen random sequences appear and disappear by the trillions every single day in every one of us?

Food allergy has nothing to do with DNA and is a reaction against proteins. There are no DNA fragments that elicit unwanted immune responses.

Did you just make up all this shit or do you have a source?

There is no doubt that there are lots of DNA pieces around naturally, similar to the fact that we are surrounded by viruses. The majority of them are not harmful to us, but who in their right mind would genetically engineer additional full or partial DNA with certain characteristics (such as being poisonous to animals) and not expect to eventually damage human and animal health on earth, let alone the issues of mixing genetically engineered strains with natural strains. Stop asking for sources, you actually need to sit down and study medicine and microbiology for a couple of years, during that time you will find various sources and also find out that most countries with highly evolved science have either completely banned GMOs or forced their labeling. The problem about the US is that their scientists know but are bought and paid for like your stupid messiah president that you adore so much while they laugh at the political squabble between the sheeple as nothing changes. Food colorings are also deemed "mostly safe" but have always needed to be labeled, GMOs are no different except for that they are far worse since they are well hidden. Stand up and vote for freedom and full transparency of information instead of a government and plutocrat crony capital dictatorship.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

YesYNot says

I don't see any reason that people who want to know should be prevented from knowing.

It puts GMO food at an economic disadvantage and therefore discourages research into better strains of produce.

It's a legitimate concern.

lostand confused   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Look asking them to stop growing GMO food is a reach-technology marches on. But asking them to label it is great. That gives the customer the choice-which we don't have now. Wanting to know what I spend money on is now big gumnt socialist, communist , jihadist plot?? Remember GMO could have many meanings. They put frog DNA into a tomato. Now I don't know if this is a hoax, but I read an article where they genetically engineered cows in China to produce human breast milk. Now I don't know if it is a hoax-but I really want labelling.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

mell says

Stop asking for sources, you actually need to sit down and study medicine and microbiology for a couple of years, during that time you will find various sources and also find out that most countries with highly evolved science have either completely banned GMOs or forced their labeling.

I'm really going to need a source because I think you made up the nonsense about immunological response to DNA.

My major at UC Davis was genetics.

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

iwog says

mell says

Stop asking for sources, you actually need to sit down and study medicine and microbiology for a couple of years, during that time you will find various sources and also find out that most countries with highly evolved science have either completely banned GMOs or forced their labeling.

I'm really going to need a source because I think you made up the nonsense about immunological response to DNA.

My major at UC Davis was genetics.

Most of this research is realtively new.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/12/3661.abstract

And here you have a company advertising immune response to DNA fragments for vaccination technology.

http://www.inovio.com/technology/synthetic-vaccines/

lostand confused   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

Here is the reuters article about genetically modified cows that produce milk that is very close to human breast milk. I found it hard to believe. Now nothing is going to stop the progress of science and we will be left behind if we don't advance. But, I would at least like it to be labelled.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-china-cows-idUSTRE75F10K20110616

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 18

mell says

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/12/3661.abstract

This talks about an immune response to proteins and the discussion about DNA is only the DNA of the patient, (self-genomic) NOT ingested DNA. This paper doesn't confirm your assertion.

mell says

http://www.inovio.com/technology/synthetic-vaccines/

Anti-viral vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream and their purpose is to stimulate anti-bodies against an infection. There is no relevance to ingested DNA, especially food DNA which always carries billions of random viral hitchhikers that no one ever cares about and could never possibly be labelled.

thunderlips11   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

The trouble with GMO foods is the potential loss of diversity.

If one place is growing all of one or two varieties of a GMO crop, and those DNA-modifications have left it vulnerable to conditions, pests or diseases (think Irish Potato Famine), then you could lose everything. Because the seeds are all "Clones" of each other - and are generally infertile - there is no natural selection taking place. In other words, if Monsanto goofs or if there are simply "Unknown Unknowns" (that's never happened, right? Humans never fail to think of everything, right?), and everybody except a few gardeners are using GMO seeds, we could potentially face the loss of an entire staple crop for a hella long time, until quantities of heirloom seed can be produced in large quantities again.

"Trust us, we thought of everything" is a baddddd idea.

The effectiveness of GMO crops are also greatly overrated and don't perform as well as advertised. I believe a few years ago, Monsanto's corn failed at hugely in South Africa, whereas the fields planted with the heirloom corn grown over centuries suffered a fraction of what the GMO crops' loss was during a drought.

Also, since the seed is generally sterile, it makes farmers dependent on a handful of large corporations.

I'm not even getting into BT or herbicides they are adding to plants now, and what that could do to the ecosystem.

It's fine if farmers are free to grow it or not. And fine if grass-seed processed food product companies want to include it. As long as they mention it.

Companies that spend hundreds of millions on package design and advertising their product lines can't possibly complain about a few extra words on a package.

They just don't want the consumer to know. Why? Because they know the consumer is not sold on GMO foods and they are lazy and cheap and don't want to change to suit the consumer, but use subterfuge to suit the consumer to themselves.

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

iwog says

mell says

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/12/3661.abstract

This talks about an immune response to proteins and the discussion about DNA is only the DNA of the patient, (self-genomic) NOT ingested DNA. This paper doesn't confirm your assertion.

mell says

http://www.inovio.com/technology/synthetic-vaccines/

Anti-viral vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream and their purpose is to stimulate anti-bodies against an infection. There is no relevance to ingested DNA, especially food DNA which always carries billions of random viral hitchhikers that no one ever cares about and could never possibly be labelled.

So ingested DNA is not able to cross the barrier into the blood? Come on. Leaky gut patients will especially thank you. Self-genomic or not, the question was whether partial DNA can elicit an immune response which has been answered. You can go on the web and find articles about other non-self-genomic DNA, e.g. as viral fragments that cause chronic heightened immune response though by themselves it should be inactive and harmless. Also a lot of non-American scientists who don't get paid off by big food happen to disagree, strange, isn't it?

DukeLaw   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

That's pretty pathetic Mell

No labeling requirements is Obama's fault when it's something that the CA Dem Party endorses?

Dude, you are totally lost about politics. let's have a basic primer

Conservatives: against regulation generally
Liberals: pro- regulation

thunderlips11   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 22

Very generally. After all, the reason we can't get drugs from Canada, is because we can't trust the safety of those foreign meds, right?

YesYNot   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 8:15am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 23

iwog says

It puts GMO food at an economic disadvantage and therefore discourages research into better strains of produce.

It's a legitimate concern.

So, should we get rid of nutrition labels? After all, nutrition labels put sugar, trans-fats, and cholesterol at a disadvantage.

Clearly herbicides, pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, and gmo provide a benefit in increasing yields. This could or could not lower prices for consumers, but the economics is not so straight forward. Herbicides and pesticides do have a realistic chance of causing problems for humans. Improved labeling of foods encourages consumers to make informed choices, and lets people decide what they want to eat. To me, that dwarfs the perceived economic disadvantage to gmo or other food.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 8:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

YesYNot says

So, should we get rid of nutrition labels? After all, nutrition labels put sugar, trans-fats, and cholesterol at a disadvantage.

Nutrition is an important consideration in food. The existence of modified base pairs in produce chromosomes have no known health implications. It's like requiring a label warning of potential evil spirits.

YesYNot   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 8:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 25

The European Union has banned GMOs, as have Australia, Japan, the UK and two dozen other countries that recognize that a lack of long term studies and testing may be hiding disastrous health defects.

Clearly, the potential impact of GMOs is equivalent to evil spirits. :rolleyes

People don't like having the wool pulled over their eyes. If there are no problems, make the argument and move on. Let people vote with their dollars.

This guy makes a decent argument by quantifying the economic savings of GM crops. http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/ I don't know how concrete those savings (30%) are though.

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 9:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

DukeLaw says

That's pretty pathetic Mell

No labeling requirements is Obama's fault when it's something that the CA Dem Party endorses?

Dude, you are totally lost about politics. let's have a basic primer

Conservatives: against regulation generally

Liberals: pro- regulation

Unfortunately it is not that easy. Obama put an ex-Monsanto guy to work at a really high position (you can find the link easily on the web). You are right that libertarians (I am certainly not a republican although these labels mean nothing much really today, so call it what you will) usually are against regulations, but labeling has been somewhat supported by them. However libertarians strongly support (organic and) raw dairy farmers which have been basically persecuted by the FDA goons and their businesses shut down in favor of inferior (less fresh) and hormone-laden pasteurized milk products sold by big food. You don't always have to vote the party line, but you are certainly mistaken if you think with these generalizations.

mell   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 9:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

iwog says

YesYNot says

So, should we get rid of nutrition labels? After all, nutrition labels put sugar, trans-fats, and cholesterol at a disadvantage.

Nutrition is an important consideration in food. The existence of modified base pairs in produce chromosomes have no known health implications. It's like requiring a label warning of potential evil spirits.

So the alarming studies done on GMOs overseas are completely false? Sounds like Karl rove denying Obama the election victory.

FortWayne   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

iwog says

It puts GMO food at an economic disadvantage and therefore discourages research into better strains of produce.

It's a legitimate concern.

Well, if it was a better product it wouldn't be a disadvantage. Let the markets be informed to make the decisions.

You might as well say that selling bullshit puts bullshit at a disadvantage and it is a legitimate concern. By the same token why label cars, they all have engines and 4 wheels, who needs to know the stinking gas mileage of what they are buying...

Vicente   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

COLOR ME SHOCKED THAT 37 DIDN"T PASS!

I mean, if there was a prop on the ballot that seemed a shoe-in for "granola country" that was it.

*shrug*

zzyzzx   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 3:00am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 30

#37 seems vague.

Prop 37: Genetically Modified Foods

I mean isn't everything genetically modified since everything we eat has been selectively bread for tens of thousands of years.

Pet peeve.

Vicente   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 3:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

zzyzzx says

I mean isn't everything genetically modified since everything we eat has been selectively bread for tens of thousands of years.

Pet peeve.

I don't think Monsanto calls what it does selective breeding. Nor did people patent their crops before. So there are a few differences that matter.

FortWayne is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net