Watch This Proposition in CA

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
DynoDon

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-big-ag-pumps-10-million-into-antigmo-labelling-campaign-20120813,0,16083.story

"SACRAMENTO -- Major bio-tech companies and manufacturers of household food products, including Campbell SoupGeneral Mills and Coca-Cola, have pumped almost $10 million into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, the November statewide ballot initiative to require labels for genetically engineered crops and processed food products.

The California Secretary of State's office reported that a members of the Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by farmers and food producers, had contributed $9.98 million since the close of the Jan. 1-June 30 reporting period.

The large cash infusion swelled the "No on 37" group's total campaign kitty to $11.9 million.

The Yes campaign has reported receiving recent large contributions of $756,000 as of Friday in addition to an earlier $2 million during the first half of the year. The Yes campaign, with what it calls the "California Right To Know" initiative, already has spent a substantial amount of money to qualify the measure for the ballot by gathering around 1 million signatures  from registered voters.

The campaign is backed mainly by organic farmers, health food retailers, makers of processed organic foods and consumer advocates.

Campaign spokeswoman Stacy Malkan said she was surprised that big agriculture and grocery manufacturers have raised so much money so quickly.

"It clearly shows they are going to start running television advertisements soon," she said. "The fact is they are nervous about being behind in the polls."

A statewide poll by Pepperdine University and the California Business Roundtable showed the Yes campaign has a commanding lead with 69.4% of respondents in support. Opponents accounted for only 21.8%, with 8.9% undecided. The Internet poll of 873 likely voters was released Aug. 2.

Kathy Fairbanks, a "No on 37" spokeswoman, declined to predict when her campaign would begin running television spots.

Farmers, food processors, biotech companies and many scientists contend that genetically modified foods derived from plants that have been altered at the cellular level are identical to non-genetically modified crops. They accuse backers of Proposition 37 of trying to scare consumers into eating more expensive organic products.

Proposition 37 advocates counter that they're not trying to ban GMO foods but only want to give consumers more information about what they are buying to eat."

This proposition will provide a good example of the influence of money in politics. Look at the almost 70% support now. No anti ads have been run yet.  Keep in mind this is not a ban-just transparent labeling. You have to wonder why spend all this money to ban labeling. I'll keep the forum posted as to the polling numbers and the anti ads that will be showing up soon. We'll see if money can change 70% support into a loser.

Comments

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
I signed up to help the "Yes"

I signed up to help the "Yes" campaign.

DynoDon
Can you donate $1M?

Can you donate $1M?

Paleo-con
DynoDon wrote:Proposition 37

DynoDon wrote:
Proposition 37 advocates counter that they're not trying to ban GMO foods but only want to give consumers more information about what they are buying to eat."

Isn't this already accomplished by the labels aready on organic foods?  I think I will agree with the food producers.  This is just croney capitalism at it's worst.  The organic industry is clearly just trying to get the Government to help select the market winners and loosers with a meaningless scary label.

DynoDon
I guess conservatives believe

I guess conservatives believe in keeping people in the dark-no transparency. Call it the Cheney Doctrine.

Paleo-con
DynoDon wrote:I guess

DynoDon wrote:
I guess conservatives believe in keeping people in the dark-no transparency. Call it the Cheney Doctrine.

No, conservatives believe people are not idiots and can make their own food choices. This has nothing to do with depriving anyone of information. What would an apple look like in a progressive world?

Label declaring GMO status

Label declaring Glucose status

Label declaring Organic status

Label declaring Fructose levels

Label declaring Fat levels

Label declaring Cholesterol status

etc, etc, etc...

The poor consumer would not even be able to see the apple to determine if they like the way it looks. I know, I know... You only want this one label. Which raises the question of why this label would be more important than any of the ones I listed above? The answer is crony capitalism. The industry that gets the label, is the one that has the best lobbyist.

DynoDon
That's rich-comparing the

That's rich-comparing the efforts of organic farmers and health minded people to the crony capitalism of the oil, banking, meatpacking and other industries. Funny, none of those crony capitalism industries try to be more transparent about their products. Just a point of purchase label. Not everyone has the time to spend hours on the internet searching thru the 42 layers of a food company web site to find out the information. How's your Monsanto stock doing?

delete jan in iowa
The first big warning sign

The first big warning sign about labeling is that Monsanto is fighting it tooth and nail.  If Monsanto and the GM industry are so sure their GM products are so safe why not label them?  Maybe people want to "get more" GM foods?  

GM products are in things you would never imagine they were in.... anything with corn or corn sweetners, soybeans or soy oil, sugar beets, fed wtih GM alphafa, etc.  Most consumers are not aware that GM organism are in almost EVERYTHING.  So why not label?

Give the consumer a choice.

Paleo-con
  DynoDon wrote:That's

 

DynoDon wrote:
That's rich-comparing the efforts of organic farmers and health minded people to the crony capitalism of the oil, banking, meatpacking and other industries. Funny, none of those crony capitalism industries try to be more transparent about their products. Just a point of purchase label. Not everyone has the time to spend hours on the internet searching thru the 42 layers of a food company web site to find out the information. How's your Monsanto stock doing?

Perhaps I can let you in on a little secret. The crony capitalist in the organic industry are no different that the crony capitalist in any other industry. They are directly comparable. Is the million dollars in the organic farmers bank account somehow more noble than the million dollars in the meatpacker's account? Seriously?

Perhaps you may have noticed that the organic industry is not trying to be transparent about their products. They are trying to put a scary label on someone else's product. It would be a different story if they were lobbying for a label on their own product.  No wait…  They already do.

If someone doesn't have the time to find out what they are putting into their own mouth, maybe they shouldn't put it there.

DynoDon
Keep in mind this is a

Keep in mind this is a proposition that people will vote on-not a law by paid off lawmakers. Let the people vote. The opponents will have plenty of time and money to convince people of the truth and justice of their cause. And organic farmers don't have the political clout of ADM or ConAgra yet. They have a right to petition Congress just like anybody else. And if organics are GMO, they would have the label too. And why is a GMO label scary-if someone doesn't have the time to find out why the label is not scary..........

DdC
DdC's picture
Prop 37 CA RIght to Know!

Prop 37 CA RIght to Know! Label GMOs!

Back in early 2011, local food activist Pamm Larry was just getting started on her campaign to place a proposition on the November 2012 California ballot calling for mandatory labeling of all food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs—see “The GreenHouse” of April 21, 2011). Fast forward to the present: Larry  succeeded, through much hard work, brain power, organization and the help of many, to achieve just that. Proposition 37—The Right to Know Initiative—will be on the ballot come November.

Good Fascists and Bad Fascists by John T. Flynn

DdC
DdC's picture
Perhaps I can let you in on a

Perhaps I can let you in on a little secret.

You're a troll?

captbebops
captbebops's picture
Don't forget that the Koch

Don't forget that the Koch brothers and thier oil cronies pumped a bunch of money into trying to get their proposition passed and it didn't.  Pumping money into things doesn't always work, just ask Michael Huffington, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.  I think it won't take much to get this proposition passed regardless of what the food crooks pour into campaigning against it.

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Paleo-con wrote: DynoDon

Paleo-con wrote:

DynoDon wrote:
Proposition 37 advocates counter that they're not trying to ban GMO foods but only want to give consumers more information about what they are buying to eat."

Isn't this already accomplished by the labels aready on organic foods?  I think I will agree with the food producers.  This is just croney capitalism at it's worst.  The organic industry is clearly just trying to get the Government to help select the market winners and loosers with a meaningless scary label.

The label won't be very scary if there's nothing scary in the ingredients.  How does a label showing me what I'm buying to ingest or to feed to my kids a bad thing?  If I'm paying for it don't I have a right to see what's in it?

DynoDon
Last year, the cigarette tax

Last year, the cigarette tax initiative lost by a few hundred votes after massive spending by you-know- who.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Paleo-con wrote:   DynoDon

Paleo-con wrote:

 

DynoDon wrote:
That's rich-comparing the efforts of organic farmers and health minded people to the crony capitalism of the oil, banking, meatpacking and other industries. Funny, none of those crony capitalism industries try to be more transparent about their products. Just a point of purchase label. Not everyone has the time to spend hours on the internet searching thru the 42 layers of a food company web site to find out the information. How's your Monsanto stock doing?

Perhaps I can let you in on a little secret. The crony capitalist in the organic industry are no different that the crony capitalist in any other industry. They are directly comparable. Is the million dollars in the organic farmers bank account somehow more noble than the million dollars in the meatpacker's account? Seriously?

Perhaps you may have noticed that the organic industry is not trying to be transparent about their products. They are trying to put a scary label on someone else's product. It would be a different story if they were lobbying for a label on their own product.  No wait…  They already do.

If someone doesn't have the time to find out what they are putting into their own mouth, maybe they shouldn't put it there.

Just how do I find out what I'm putting into my mouth unless it's labeled somewhere?  I have plenty of time but I don't think staring at a can of soup for 2 hours in the grocery store is going to tell me much.  If all the ingredients and pertinent info is on the label then I can take the time to check it out on the internet.  Talk about corporate brainwashing.

captbebops
captbebops's picture
DynoDon wrote: Last year, the

DynoDon wrote:

Last year, the cigarette tax initiative lost by a few hundred votes after massive spending by you-know- who.

Only a minority of people smoke.  Everyone eats.  People are becoming more concerned with what is in their food and how it is raised.  There were issues beyond that cigarette tax and the advertising that created the defeat.  One might be a difficulty that some liberals might have saying on one hand that they want pot legalized while trying to tax cigarettes out of existence.

 

DdC
DdC's picture
The tobacco prohibition is

The tobacco prohibition is exactly as bogus as Ganja prohibition. Same liars, same corporations hiding in the shadows, same fear mongers. Worse is they don't tell the truth leading the poor into worse health problems for tax payers to pay for down the road. Tobacco has been used by cultures for thousands of years. Same as Ganja. Sir Walter Raleigh to Thomas Jefferson grew tobacco. Thousands of years Indians, Egyptians and Turks smoked it without health problems. Not until Ronnie Rayguns and other celebrities started advertising it for your pleasure. The pleasure comes from chemicals and it is those doing the harm, and it is those never mentioned scapegoating the tobacco farmer. Flame retardants, burn enhancers, preservatives. Chemicals to make the smoke pleasingly white and the flavors and hundreds, sometimes thousands of chemical adulterants added to make a "cigarette". Not important enough for liberals to jeopardize their foolish smoking bans in public parks. Next to highways with cars spewing carcinogens also never mentioned. Gives corporate property management authority to evict anyone. Mostly the cost is driving the poor to smoke generic brands with even more chemicals to make it cost effective. And harmful. So again censorship and advertising pushing lies. Now instead of Ronnie lying about cigarettes bringing pleasure its the liberals lying about the dangers and never mentioning the real dangers since Monsanto and Dow Corning and Searl Pharmaceuticals might not donate to their campaigns. Once again using the false claims to denigrate tobacco and then compare the results to Ganja that has NO adulterants to compare. But it is enough to keep doubt in the minds of the legislators and fear in the minds of parents. Not for the sake of the kidlets, for the sake of corporate profits. Nothing new under the sun...

Organic Cannabis/Tobacco vs Chemical Cigarettes
Cannabis Less Risky Than Alcohol/Tobacco, Says Report
Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco

What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis
HEALTH officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

PS: It's usually politicians that label us, the public, too stupid to understand. They also push legislature in hopes that we won't read the fine print. From the Koch's BS bills to over riding the prison industrial complex passing prop 215. We the people prove we ain't all stupid,  Just too trusting in our elected officials being honest. Large corporations would love to outlaw organic food and farmers markets. Local shopping is the downfall of Wall St. and they know it. Without naive consumer lapdogs buying their BS in Wallmart or Safeway, they would have no money to buy politicians. Stop feeding the beast! Stop electing their cronies...

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
HEY...I WANT TO KNOW IF GMO'S

HEY...I WANT TO KNOW IF GMO'S ARE IN MY FOOD! So WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??? Maybe it doesn't matter to you what you eat but I am steering clear of GMO's thank you! In fact I bet that is what they are afraid of.....people won't eat their food if GMO's are in it! Always thinking about their bottom line. They can keep their frankenfish too!

Paleo-con
Bush_Wacker wrote:The label

Bush_Wacker wrote:
The label won't be very scary if there's nothing scary in the ingredients.

That sounds a lot like the argument people use to support the Patriot Act: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

Bush_Wacker wrote:
How does a label showing me what I'm buying to ingest or to feed to my kids a bad thing? If I'm paying for it don't I have a right to see what's in it?

I already covered this above. There are lots of labels we can put on food to address what is or is not in the item. Don't you have the right to know which apple has the highest sugar content, which apple has the most calories, which apple has the highest fiber content? The question is not about whether or not labels are useful. The question here is, why a GMO label is important above all the others. Especially since it doesn't actually address the nutrition value of the food item like other labels can. Since Organic and GMO foods have the same nutritional value, it makes it easy to see the true value of this label. The value is strictly about one food industry getting the Government to help them hurt a competitor. I.E. Crony capitalism; something you are normally against.

delete jan in iowa
Paleo-con wrote: I already

Paleo-con wrote:

I already covered this above...... useful. The question here is, why a GMO label is important above all the others. Especially since it doesn't actually address the nutrition value of the food item like other labels can. Since Organic and GMO foods have the same nutritional value, it makes it easy to see the true value of this label. 

WRONG WRONG WRONG.  

Organic and GMO food DO NOT HAVE THE SAME FOOD VALUE, that is a myth.  GMO foods are lower in nutriential value due to the glyphosate used to produce them.  Glyphosate ties up minerals and nutrients (essential for human and animal health), that's how it kills the weeds.  Also, glyphosate residue remains in the food therefore the food product causing nutrient deficiencies in humans and animals as well as other negative side effects.  

Glyphosate kills microbial life in the soil.  If the microbial life is low in the soil, the minerals and nutrients cannot be upsorbed by the plants.  

Taste and nutrient value in food in determined by the mineral and nutrient content of the soil the crop is grown in.... poor nutrient quality, poor mineral content in the soil.  

Paleo-con wrote:
... food industry getting the Government to help them hurt a competitor. I.E. Crony capitalism....

Monsanto and other large farma are using the government to promote their products and keep the public in the dark concerning the truth about GMO.  

Studies have been done and if the public is given the choice between GMO and non-GMO, they chose non-GMO food products.

anonymous green
GMO food is going to kill

GMO food is going to kill millions of people, and infect the world's crops forever unless this mad-scientist approach to farming is stopped.

Let those crops burn in the drought and never re-plant them.

delete jan in iowa
anonymous green wrote: GMO

anonymous green wrote:

GMO food is going to kill millions of people, and infect the world's crops forever unless this mad-scientist approach to farming is stopped.

Let those crops burn in the drought and never re-plant them.

Amen Brother!!!!

delete jan in iowa
What most people do not

What most people do not understand is that the entire purpose of GMO seeds is to make the plants resistant to Glyphosate (Roundup) so that the Glyphosate can be used to irradicate weeds in the crops. 

Yes, all the GMO clamor is about SELLING MORE GLYPHOSATE/herbicdes!!!  

6 - 8 MILLION TONS of glyphosate are sold yearly world wide. 

All of the health risks involved with Glyphosate are being literally cramed down out throats simply to sell more herbicides.

All of this is simply about making more MONEY for Monsanto and big farma!

Brookesmith
More government "regulation" 

More government "regulation"  by the FDA to help their owners Monsanto and ADM. Is this the "good regulation" we the people need?  Monsanto and ADM give millions to both parties to ensure whoever is in office they will have an ally.

delete jan in iowa
Brookesmith wrote: More

Brookesmith wrote:

More government "regulation"  by the FDA to help their owners Monsanto and ADM. Is this the "good regulation" we the people need?  Monsanto and ADM give millions to both parties to ensure whoever is in office they will have an ally.

Our economic system has utterly corrupted our political system.

You can vote everyone out of office and the corporations will just "buy" the new folks.  

Our economic system must be reformed.

Brookesmith
Our politcal system needs

Our politcal system needs reforming. Take the money out of politics and campaigning, Give each candidate a bullhorn and an old VW bus to campaign with. Make it against the law for him to take money to even fill his little bus up. Get the money out of politics and maybe, just maybe, politicians will start acually paying attention and representing their constituencies.

Take corproations personhood right of free speech and unequal protection (limited liability) under the law away and make all lobbying illegal. Make them powerless politically.

delete jan in iowa
Brookesmith wrote: Our

Brookesmith wrote:

Our politcal system needs reforming. Take the money out of politics and campaigning, Give each candidate a bullhorn and an old VW bus to campaign with. Make it against the law for him to take money to even fill his little bus up. Get the money out of politics and maybe, just maybe, politicians will start acually paying attention and representing their constituencies.

Take corproations personhood right of free speech and unequal protection (limited liability) under the law away and make all lobbying illegal. Make them powerless politically.

I agree with you, however, if we do not reform our economic system the corporations will quickly find ways around the new rules that we establish.  The true root of the problem is our economic system.  I'm not talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water.... I'm talking about "true fundamental reform" of our economic system.

Coalage1
From Ronald Bailey in Reason

From Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine:  http://www.reasonmag.com/

Excerpts:

Based on scientific assessments the Food and Drug Administration only requires labels when a product raises safety or nutritional issues which clearly current foods using ingredients from biotech crops do not. Thus the agency is correct when it says that such labels would be "inherently misleading," and would "imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods." Of course, the whole point of Proposition 37 is to mislead with regard to the safety of biotech crops. The coalition anti-science campaigners want to mandate labels in this case because they hope that consumers would treat them as warning labels, turning away from perfectly safe and cheaper biotech and conventional foods toward pricier and more profitable organic fare. Of course, if people who have been suckered by organic fearmongering want to avoid biotech foods, they can simply purchase foods labeled organic now.

Although cloaking the Proposition 37 anti-science disinformation campaign in bogus health fears and alleged consumer choice concerns, the Organic Consumers Association Director Ronnie Cummins gives the game away in an open letter earlier this month. “The burning question for us all then becomes how—and how quickly—can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming?,” writes Cummins. Sadly many well-meaning Californians appear to have been duped by the promoters of Proposition 37, so that its corporate and special interest backers cynically calculate that an electoral victory in November will produce higher profits and more donations. Here is a real case of putting profits ahead of science.

anonymous green
Our political system is

Our political system is great, without the poison pills placed in it to ruin it.

Our economic system is great, without the poison pills placed in it to destroy it.

It's the poison pills placed into every social program, that monkey-wrench them from the inside.

We need to stop eating the poisons that are killing us.

Food included.

delete jan in iowa
Coalage1 wrote: From Ronald

Coalage1 wrote:

From Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine:  

Excerpts:

Based on scientific assessments the Food and Drug Administration only requires labels when a product raises safety or nutritional issues which clearly current foods using ingredients from biotech crops do not. Thus the agency is correct when it says that such labels would be "inherently misleading," and would "imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods." Of course, the whole point of Proposition 37 is to mislead with regard to the safety of biotech crops.......

WRONG and uninformed.  GMO foods are different and are unhealthy.  Have you EVER thought about the relationship between obesity in America and the introduction of "untested" GMO foods?

captbebops
captbebops's picture
GMO foods are banned in

GMO foods are banned in Europe and should be here.  Monstersanto is the Frankenstein of our modern era.  They don't need to exist.  The founder was an idealistic egghead who egotistcally thought he could save the world from starvation through science.  His marketing department had other ideas.

 

delete jan in iowa
Keep in mind that this is all

Keep in mind that this is all about SELLING MORE Glyphosate and other herbicides for MONSANTO and the other big ag companies.

Selling more PRODUCT, not food for people or animals.

DynoDon
I hope you plan on living

I hope you plan on living until 2112-things might change by then.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
I would rather starve to

I would rather starve to death than eat GMO or GE crops.

I fully support organic farming, local or not.

I know I posted some disturbing videos about Monsanto in earlier topics. I hope people get around to watching them so they can truely get the full picture!

DynoDon
Watch the documentary "King

Watch the documentary "King Corn".

http://www.amazon.com/King-Corn/dp/B003F9QBXS/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=...

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
The issue that most people

The issue that most people have with Monsanto isn't about the health content of their GM crops but with the malicious business practices they've incorporated to become a multibillion-dollar company.  Monsanto has a practice where they sue organic farmers for patent infringements due to natural cross-pollination.  A Monsanto GM crop is growing on one plot of land and an organic crop is growing on a plot next to it.  The GM crop contaminates the organic crop, making the organic crop no longer organic.

The organic farmers tried to sue Monsanto for ruining their crops.  They lost.  When they try to sell their inorganic crop to try to make up some of the money that they've lost, Monsanto sues the organic farmers for patent violations and wins.  Then Monsanto takes their farms and grows more GM crops.

http://www.dailytech.com/Monsanto+Defeats+Small+Farmers+in+Critical+Bioethics+Class+Action+Suit/article24118.htm

Also, the 1942 USDA film, Hemp For Victory, states that because Cannabis hemp grows so tall, so thick, and so quickly, it creates a canopy that shades other smaller weeds from the sun, choking them out.  Like a natural weed killer.  Survival of the fittest.  Ironic, huh?  Weed is a weed-killer.  Go figure.

Anyway, if we legalize "Marihuana" again, hemp will outgrow other forms of plant life and Monsanto's RoundUp poisonous weed-killer chemicals will no longer be needed.  Since RoundUp will no longer be needed, there won't be any need for Monsanto's RoundUp-ready genetically-modified seeds, and the cross-pollination and disgusting lawsuits will end.  And because hemp grows so rapidly in every climate, legalizing Cannabis again will help us clean Monsanto's RoundUp poison out of our water and soil more quickly.

Coalage1
Ronald Bailey, from the same

Ronald Bailey, from the same article as mentioned above, also had this to say:

At its annual meeting in June, the American Medical Association endorsed a report on the labeling of bioengineered foods from its Council on Science and Public Health. The report found that, “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.” The AMA report further noted, “Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach….” Every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of current biotech crop varieties has found them to be as safe or even safer than conventional crop varieties.

delete jan in iowa
If they are so great.... then

If they are so great.... then I want MORE.

Label all foods so I can make sure I'm getting my daily dose of glyphosate!!!

YIPPEE for glyphosate!!!!!!!!

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Of course the American

Of course the American Medical Association would endorse bioengineered foods. After all, when people start getting sick from it the hospitals, doctors and researchers will have a new money making mystery to go after.

Sorry..... I would rather die from starvation than gamble on the chance that the frankenfish or roundup ready infused corn is not going to cause me any harm.

Coalage1
This thread was of interest

This thread was of interest to me because of the reactions it drew.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  If the voters in CA want a labeling provision, more power to 'em. 

I am going to go out on a limb and surmise that the majority of people who are in support of this proposition also probably support the notion that climate change is real, and its happening right now.  If you reread some of the environmental threads, the backers of climate change point to the science as being settled, peer reviewed, and indisputable.

The same thing has been done with genetically modified food.  Numerous publications point to the science explaining that no damage or effects can be found from eating this food.  Yet, many of the same people who are so willing to accept the science of climate change, are rejecting the science supporting the use of genetically modifed food.  I find that somewhat puzzling.

 

delete jan in iowa
Coalage1 wrote: Numerous

Coalage1 wrote:

Numerous publications point to the science explaining that no damage or effects can be found from eating this food.  Yet, many of the same people who are so willing to accept the science of climate change, are rejecting the science supporting the use of genetically modifed food.  I find that somewhat puzzling.

There are numerous publications and noted scientists (Dr. Don Huber for one) who are pointing out exactly the opposit, that GM food is not healthy.  

However, you forget the point of GM in the first place.  It isn't so that food will be more nutricious or healthy.  It's not so the crops will have higher yeilds.  The purpose for altering the genes in corn, soybeans, sugar beets, alfalfa and other crops is so Monsanto can sell more of the herbicide glyphosate.  

Glyphosate (Roundup) and making more money from the sales of glyphosate is the driving force behind GM seeds.  

There are NO HEALTH BENEFITS IN EATING GM FOOD PRODUCTS. 

Coalage1
Your point about Monsanto is

Your point about Monsanto is taken.  However, the higher yields will also contribute to being able to feed more people with the same amount of land.  

 

delete jan in iowa
Coalage1 wrote: Your point

Coalage1 wrote:

Your point about Monsanto is taken.  However, the higher yields will also contribute to being able to feed more people with the same amount of land.  

There are NO HIGHER yields.  GM seeds do not produce higher yields than conventional seeds.  

The whole "feed the world with bioengineering" is a load of crap.  

Soil fertility ensures higher yields.  Glyphosate destroys soil fertility.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
The Biotech Goliath Roars:

The Biotech Goliath Roars: Monsanto’s Gang Dumps $25 Million into NO on 37 Campaign to Label GMOs

CHECK OUT THE LINK FOR SEVERAL ARTICLES AND A VIDEO

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob342.htm

 

DynoDon
Can't wait to see the NO on

Can't wait to see the NO on 37 ads. I wonder what their talking points will be-probably cost.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Hopefully this link will

Hopefully this link will work.

Pro-GMO Propaganda in California Dismantled by New Cost Study: GMO Labeling Will Not Raise the Cost of Food

 

DynoDon
Why let the facts get in the

Why let the facts get in the way of a good ad? I can't think how they can link this to killing babies, hurting marriage, killing jobs-maybe  they can claim it stops the freedom of buying mystery food? They may have to rely on the too much govt regulation argument(please put hand over heart when reading) and it will ruin CA.

captbebops
captbebops's picture
The "patriot community" hates

The "patriot community" hates Monsanto too so let's forge some alliances with them to crush this proposition.

 

DynoDon
The problem is that the

The problem is that the patriot community is focused on hating Obama over everything else.

DynoDon
Here's the latest on the

Here's the latest on the corporations spending against the prop.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gmo-campaign-funds-20120822,0,1845421.story

"Food growers, beverage firms bolster effort against Prop. 37

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times

August 22, 2012

 

SACRAMENTO — Major food growers and processors are pumping millions of dollars into an increasingly hefty war chest to fight a November ballot measure that would require labels on genetically engineered foods. In all, they've collected $25 million, the most for any ballot initiative this fall.

Anticipating the need for a high-dollar media campaign to fight the measure, agribusinesses, biotech corporations and manufacturers of some of the bestselling grocery products are bankrolling the effort.

Details of the campaign remain secret, but public reports of campaign finances show that contributions have more than doubled in the last week. Although the No on Proposition 37 campaign's biggest expense thus far has been about half a million dollars for political consultants and media experts, campaign officials said a major advertising campaign is in the works.

"It's all about reaching out to voters," campaign spokeswoman Cathy Fairbanks said. "It's expensive in California."

Last week, the No on Proposition 37 coalition reported receiving 22 new contributions totaling $13 million in addition to the $12 million it had already collected since the beginning of the year. Supporters of Proposition 37 have reported contributions of about $3 million.

The roster of financial backers for the opposition campaign reads like a list of bestsellers at the supermarket and a visit to an agricultural supply store. Leading the list is chemical giantMonsanto Co., the maker of the popular Round-Up herbicide, with $4.2 million. Close behind is E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. with $4 million. Also contributing are other biotech firms that developed plants that have had their DNA manipulated to make them resistant to insects, crop diseases, herbicides or pesticides.

Manufacturers of popular household brands also contributed:PepsiCo Inc.has given $1.7 million;Coca-Cola Co., $1.2 million; Nestle USA Inc., $1.2 million;Kellogg Co., $633,000; and jam makerJ.M. Smucker Co., $388,000. Cargill Inc., the international grain and oil producer and marketer, contributed $202,2229.

The influx of large contributions before voters have gotten engaged in the issue and the prospect of even more to come are signs that "these companies will try to buy the election," said Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for Yes on 37. "I think they are very nervous because they are far behind in the polls. Any minute, we're going to see a wave of deceptive television commercials."

Three times as many registered voters backed Proposition 37 as opposed it — 65% to 21.8% — in a statewide survey by the California Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, whose results were released late last week. The online poll of 811 likely voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4%. The poll, which asks respondents to read the ballot title, summary and arguments that will be in the official voters' pamphlet, has yielded similar results in two previous surveys.

Unfavorable early polling, combined with the complexity of the genetically engineered food issue and a crowded November ballot, make it essential for Proposition 37 opponents to raise lots of money to buy as much television time as possible, said Fairbanks, the opposition campaign spokeswoman."