Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GMO labeling

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GMO labeling

    I'm curious if you are living in California, are you going to vote for the GMO labeling proposition? If so, why? If not, why not? If you live outside California, are you hopeful that we'll pass it or do you hope that we don't? Why or why not?
    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

  • #2
    Not living there. (Lived in San Francisco 1974-1988.)

    Hope you pass it. Why? Because CA has about 1/10th of the entire US population, so when something like that passes there, it's a big deal. Get NY, TX, IL, and FL on board, and the people have beat the big ugly known as Monsanto.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
      Not living there. (Lived in San Francisco 1974-1988.)

      Hope you pass it. Why? Because CA has about 1/10th of the entire US population, so when something like that passes there, it's a big deal. Get NY, TX, IL, and FL on board, and the people have beat the big ugly known as Monsanto.
      +1...except for the san francisco bit, but i was there for a week a couple of years ago.
      if this is something that picks up steam in a lot of populous states, and other states hop on board, it could be a national standard before too long. that would be one hell of a fight, but one worth winning.
      http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

      Comment


      • #4
        What I have heard is that since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, they'll likely not make a different set of labels just for California.
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • #5
          I live in Cali and hell yeah I'm voting for Prop 37! I want to make the decision for myself if I want to eat foods with GMO products in them(which I don't).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
            What I have heard is that since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, they'll likely not make a different set of labels just for California.
            Sure they will. CA is probably the main reason we have hybrid cars. When CA does it right (an imo, GMO labelling is the right thing to do), it makes a difference to all of us. Do you think that ConAgra, et al, want to have to stop selling their products to 10% of the country? No way. They'll cave. Most of the food industry operates on thin margins and they don't blithely toss out 10% of their customers.
            "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

            B*tch-lite

            Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

            Comment


            • #7
              If they did make different labels for California, the Internet would let us tell people in other states which things are GMO. The other thing I've heard is that since most things have HFCS in it and that's made of GMO corn, that most things will have the GMO label on it. It'll be like a huge red flag showing you where all the HFCS is hiding.

              I'm curious if anybody thinks it is a bad idea to label GMO foods.
              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's a bad idea if you are trying to sell GMO foods.
                Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                Griff's cholesterol primer
                5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                bloodorchid is always right

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                  Not living there. (Lived in San Francisco 1974-1988.)

                  Hope you pass it. Why? Because CA has about 1/10th of the entire US population, so when something like that passes there, it's a big deal. Get NY, TX, IL, and FL on board, and the people have beat the big ugly known as Monsanto.
                  It will never happen in Florida. In terms of social/health/financial progress, we tend to go backward rather than forward. Sux.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You never know with FL. If it could be shown that GMO foods or even HFCS or the growth hormones in beef and milk are contributing to elderly dementia, I bet you could get FL on board.

                    TX would probably also be a hard sell. But NY and IL would be awesome states. NY has already done the limiting of sugary sodas (which I disagree with), so they're ripe for this kind of law.

                    I'm in Louisiana. We probably won't pass a law like this 'til after I'm dead.
                    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                    B*tch-lite

                    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                      I'm curious if anybody thinks it is a bad idea to label GMO foods.
                      It is a bad idea to have government force people to label GMO food. It is not a bad idea to label GMO food. If we had a free market in food, companies like Monsanto and ADM wouldn't exist, GMO food might have never even come about, and if it did we'd surely have labeling by now. Government is the cause of our current state of affairs. There is something perverse in the idea of lobbying for more government regulations to rectify the situation that was caused entirely by government regulations and market manipulations, but I get why people think it might be the least bad option. I just hope we don't forget the big picture. Government and regulations are the enemy. Ultimately they need to slain. Laws like Prop 37 might make things slightly better in the short term, but they do it in a way that empowers the very entity that we need to be fighting. We can't lose sight of that. The greatest "reform" to fix our current food problems would be to burn Sacramento and Washington DC to the ground.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm voting for it.
                        Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          JWBooth, I agree with you in theory. I really do. However, we're not talking a level playing field. If you look at Monsanto's "in" at the FDA, USDA, etc., you'll see that this has to be done at a state level to get the attention of the Feds. The Feds have already greenlighted GMOs and the non-labelling of such.

                          When BGH was the issue, the companies that produced the stuff actually tried to prohiibit companies (like Ben & Jerry) from putting "no BGH" on their labels. Fortunately, not enough judges could be coerced, and now companies are allowed to advertise that their dairy products are free of this hormone.

                          I'm actually so paranoid of corn at this point that I literally wouldn't eat it ever again unless I grew it and the seed came from someone reputable in a country other than the U.S.

                          The best way, of course, for change is voting with one's wallet. Unfortunately, it would take a very long time to convince the American public to stop buying anything in a can, box, or bag, until truth in labelling was a reality. In the meantime, the will of the (uneducated about food additives/adulturation) majority shouldn't supercede the minority's right to know what they are spending their money on to feed themselves and their families.
                          "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                          B*tch-lite

                          Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm voting for it.

                            As far as other states, it will be cheaper for them to keep the labels. With the distribution system in place, it will be difficult not to. Their choices would be to A, create nation wide labels (which, lets be serious, for better or worse, as goes CA, goes the nation); B, spend a huge amount of money to make CA specific labels; C, stop selling their product in CA (and, lets face it, if one company does that, another will just fill the void).

                            Let's look at history. in 1987, New Jersey passed a law requiring all consumables have an expiration date, even water. Did they make NJ specific labels? Not an exact parallel, but you see my point.

                            As far as whether or not it's right or wrong..I'm a libertarian and feel that it is right. First of all, it is coming from a state government, from the people to be exact, not the federal government, so no problem there. As far as level playing fields, there are none right now. In order for the free market to work, it needs a level playing field. Usually, yes, this mainly means that the government stays out of picking winners and losers. However, it also means that there are times that the government does get involved. For example, if one company used hired goons to intimidate customers of a rival company, creating an uneven playing field, should the government get involved? A free market does not mean no government involvement, it means that the government ensures an open and even playing field. Right now, we don't have that.

                            In order for the free market to work, people have to know what their options are. Let's face it, the majority of people will always choose something that says "does not contain GMO" versus "does contain..." But no one knows. You can make a good guess, but you can't be certain. I mean, a bee research company comes out blaming GMOs for hive colony collapse...Monsanto buys the company and shuts down the research. How can you have an even playing field...let alone a free market...with that?

                            ..........................

                            One more thing to consider and prepare for though. This will have unintended consequences. When people start demanding non-GMO, store managers will have to start supplying it, which means that farmers will have to start growing it. The problem is that their fields are saturated with herbicides. Herbicides that non-GMO crops wont be able to resist....while it won't cause millions dying in the streets, Africa-type famine, not by a longshot, we will have some shortages, and I will be surprised if we don't have a noticeable price hike in the grocery stores, at least temporarily. When that happens, expect the companies to come back and say "See, it was a bad idea, go ahead and get rid of that law." And it will be up to us to stand up and tell them to shove it up their asses...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, we currently have a law that says that companies CAN'T put "no GMOs" on the label. That's right, they can't say they don't have them! So yeah, a level playing field. I'd be okay if they decided to pass a law that said it's okay for companies to put "No GMOs" on the label. But since they have a law against it, we need the GMO labeling law.
                              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X