patrick.net

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.

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

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.

HEY YOU says

No Conservative can vote for 37.

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

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

No on 32. Koch brother sam walton thug terrorists!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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*

#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.

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.