A coalition opposed to California's Proposition 37 has collected $25M from corporate backers...

This news story has 12 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Tony Petroski Comments (6373)
 
In this time of "austerity" is there no regulation that California can afford to pass up? Perhaps a 3-month moritorium to let the private sector catch a breather?

While we're at it, perhaps another 3 billion would goose the stem-cell research?

Can we rename California "Boondogglia?"
22 Aug 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like

153972 Comments (486)
 
So the largest economy in the world - the EU has regulated GM foods to inform their consumers but California and more importantly the US can't? California and particularly US politicians are bought and paid for. Period.

Poll after poll has shown that most Americans when informed of the effects on organic farmers, farmers in general and the possible health outcomes favor overwhelmingly regulating and requiring origin and content of GM food.
23 Aug 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like

TWagen Comments (128)
 
Those labels will be so prevalent that they wqill lose all meaning. It will be like when the trans fat stuff was out there. Did anyone really stop by baked goods and such ?

Funny California didn't just tax the products. That seems mpore their style. Then when people buy the stuff they will be taxed without even knowing it.
22 Aug 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like

youngman442002 Comments (5033)
 
For a State that has more plastic surgeons than any other.....its kind of funny they don´t want their granola modified too....
22 Aug 2012, 01:10 PM Reply Like

Humble Value Miner Comments (370)
 
all food should have these labels, people who don't like to put his own health at risk (and maybe the planet's health) should be able to distinguish crop from crap
by the way I know that who sell seeds say it is all safe, but the reality is that we simply don't know the long term implications...
22 Aug 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like

Veritas1010 Comments (726)
 
I am an investor AND an organic rancher.

Though I live in a state where big money and unbridled power are always in complete control, (Texas), a lot of people want to know if what they are eating is genetically altered in a significant manner.

Look, not enough scientific research has been done here. When big industry will not monitor itself responsibly, then unfortunately government becomes involved. I personally loath the nanny state - but we wouldn't have outside regulation if people and companies monitored and regulate themselves honestly and prudently.
22 Aug 2012, 07:05 PM Reply Like

Craig Lehman Comments (141)
 
There *are* some legitimate questions about genetically engineered crops, not that I've seen any issues that seem particularly problematic.

But this is not a tax (or boondoggle), just a requirement that manufacturers disclose *information*, as with the nutritional information already on labels. It's hard to see what's wrong with information. In fact, it might help the cause of genetically engineered foods and crops in the long run: after a few years of this information being available, and no one being injured, the people who are skeptical about such products might begin to lose their inhibitions.
22 Aug 2012, 03:06 PM Reply Like

Cyan007 Comments (3)
 
Don't get me wrong... maybe in a few years I'd like to know if my food is real or not but for the time being I think we can let it slide considering the economy. If you're that concerned over it, you should be responsible for doing your own research until then.
22 Aug 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like

farmerandcook Comments (7)
 
Regulatory capture precluded serious investigation on GMO food products. Manufacturers could not wait for testing and they planted their own executives in high places within the federal government. Michael Taylor. Linda Fisher. Mickey Kantor. These people have shepherded and guarded private sector interest for years within government and one result is that consumers have learned that there is little reason to trust claims made by a government merely parroting the script written by those they regulate.

As for the market. There has to be some downside to General Mills and Mars being in a coalition with Monsanto and Conagra.
Is that going to pan out at Whole Foods? Many won't care and they also don't care enough to vote. That segment of voters merely ignores propositions. The NO on 37 coalition may spend 100 million to defeat this measure because this issue is for all the marbles. I wonder when Monsanto's stock will get shorted?
22 Aug 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like

Cincinnatus Comments (2269)
 
This proposition sounds like a great idea. Non-GMO foods require more water and pesticides/chemicals and should be heavily taxed. Separating out non-GMO from GMO with distinct labeling and barcodes would enable this and there's no place more deserving of heavy taxation than the idiots that keep voting in the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Waters.

California should also post food police outside every grocer. Anybody walking out with non-GMO foods in their possession should have their forehead stamped with "Science be damned - I just raped the Earth!".
22 Aug 2012, 07:04 PM Reply Like

RSRinehart Comments (200)
 
Only in California!! Home to every kooky idea to try and protect everybody from everything, give everybody a chance to be a victim. And make beaucoup more $$$ for the lawyers. Maybe we should all just go live in a box and never come out Hey, we could transplant Michael Bloomberg to California and elect him governor. Get all the over-controlling idiots in one place.
23 Aug 2012, 12:46 AM Reply Like

2520north Comment (1)
 
Crappy food is a big business. Maybe California is right, and maybe they are not going far enough. The public is on the edge of telling PEP and KO to shove all of their artificially loaded products and dangerous fast foods, you know where. Just look at the throwback pepsi cartons on the shelves. They are plain and too few.
24 Aug 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like