When I finally sat down to read the facts, this is a pretty easy one. Prop 37 simply requires that if food is made from plants or animals which have had their genetic material altered, they must be labelled as "Genetically Engineered." The measure would also prohibit marketing genetically engineered food as "natural". That seems pretty simple. It works in dozens of other countries around the world. It doesn't ban any sales of any foods. It doesn't increase costs (ok, ok, Kellogg's probably has to revise their cereal boxes, but I'm not too worried about that). Right to know is an American value.
This is one where I've really seen how much influence advertising can have. As I've watched the baseball playoffs over the past few weeks, I've seen hundreds of the ads engineered by Monsanto and the other agri-businesses who seem to be afraid to let the public know what's in their food. And the ads were effective -- they got me to question my support. But now that I actually read the measure and some of the analyses, I'm voting Yes on 37. I particularly appreciate that the initiative has a rational approach to how it should be implemented: it puts the CA Department of Public Health in charge of regulating the labeling requirements.
If you're wondering -- as I was -- about the no campaigns claims about exemptions, then you might find it useful to read this letter to the editor in the Napa Valley Register or a portion of this LA Times article about the impact of the opponents' advertising. Basically, the exemptions are there to keep Prop 37 focused on a single-subject and are in line with how other countries implement their labeling requirements.
For more info, check out the non-partisan California Choices website: pro/con, in-depth info.
You can also find info at the Yes on 37 campaign website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I've posted my thoughts on your blog in another location, and got some feedback from friends including:
"One of the things that amazes me is the comparison between food and drugs. The FDA requires years of testing for drugs that will be administered to a small percentage of the population, under the supervision of a doctor, often for a short period of time. Yet the FDA (yes, that is FOOD and drug admin) does not have any such requirements that I know of for GMO, which will be consumed by almost all the population for the duration of their lives, with no supervision at all. And even with the drug testing requirements, we come up with drugs that are later recalled. Seems like the FDA is shirking it's duties here."
From physician friend:
"Well, I have to agree with you on this one. Actually, I'm much less concerned about what toxins may be introduced, than I am with what nutrients are likely to BE LEFT OUT. Toxins are often measurable or detectable. But the subtle balance of micronutrients in their natural genetic state... that's a different story. We know so very little about them.
We evolved to survive on the complex nutrient makeup of plants, and animals for that matter. Though it may be rare for actual toxins to be genetically introduced, it is almost in-escapeable that important complex nutrients, will, by the very nature of genetic complexity, be changed or displaced. It is likely we will not even know what micronutrient or balance of micronutrients we are missing, but will inevitably suffer the health consequences.
Thanks for adding info from your contacts, Rick. Polling looks tight! Those Monsanto ads are having an impact ... grr.
Post a Comment