GOODMAN … VOTE YES - If California were a country, with its population approaching 40 million, it would be among the 30 most populous nations on Earth. The economic, political and cultural impacts of California on the rest of the United States are huge. That is why citizen ballot initiatives in California—and any state law, for that matter—can carry such significance.
Of the 11 initiatives before the 2012 California electorate, one drawing perhaps the most attention is Proposition 37, on the labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Whether or not this ballot passes could have a significant impact on how our food system is organized, favoring small, local organic-food producers (if it passes), or allowing for the increased expansion of large, corporate agribusiness (if it fails).
The initiative is straightforward, requiring that genetically modified foods be labeled as such. The official California voter guide summarizes Prop. 37 this way: “Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as ‘natural.’ Provides exemptions.”
More than 1 million signatures were gathered in order to put the proposition on the ballot. (Read the rest here)
●●●●●
STONE … VOTE NO- The genetically engineered food labeling initiative on the November ballot – Proposition 37 – should give us all a case of déjà vu.
In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 65, another labeling initiative that required warning signs in areas where people could come into contact with chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Chances are that you see these signs on a daily basis – they are on cars, they are at grocery and retail stores, they are in parking garages, and so on.
The warnings are so ubiquitous that they have become meaningless. My minivan – rated #1 in safety by Consumer Reports magazine – warns me that the car contains chemicals known by the state to cause birth defects or reproductive harm.
But as a mother who needs to drive her children to school and soccer practice, that warning label does not tell me what the substance is, how prevalent it is, how I might be exposed, or how to mitigate the risk. And every other car I looked at buying also had the same warning label! (Read the rest here)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 86
Pub: Oct 26, 2012