Preventing Food Labeling with Money and Lies
Christina Wodtke stashed this in covering eyes and hoping it'll go away
Stashed in: Food Industry
At this very moment, Monsanto and other pesticide companies are spending more than $1 million a day to convince California voters that it’s not in their best interest to know whether the food they eat is genetically engineered.
And their commercials are super confusing.
The commercials make them look like they're pro-labeling but Anti-37.
But really, they're against labeling.
create enough confusion and people will vote no on props, almost reflexively. We really have to be clear on this one.
So the correct answer here is to vote YES on 37, right?
The Sacremento Bee's no-on-37 endorsement says: "Even voters who worry about genetically modified food should reject Proposition 37. This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling."
While I respect the Bee as one of the few really good newspapers, I disagree with their reasoning (which is also sound and unpurchased as far as I can tell.) It is an editorial. Another editorial well worth reading is Michael Pollan's http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/why-californias-proposition-37-should-matter-to-anyone-who-cares-about-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
" If Prop 37 passes, and the polls suggest its chances are good, then that debate will most likely go national and a new political dynamic will be set in motion.
It’s hard to predict exactly how things will play out if Prop 37 is approved. Expect the industry to first try to stomp out the political brush fire by taking the new California law to court on the grounds that a state cannot pre-empt a federal regulation. One problem with that argument is that, thanks to the bio-tech industry’s own lobbying prowess, there is no federal regulation on labeling, only an informal ruling, and therefore nothing to pre-empt. "
"One person in Washington who would surely take note of the California vote is President Obama. During the 2008 campaign, he voiced support for many of the goals of the food movement, including the labeling of G.M. food. (“We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified,” he declared in an Iowa speech in 2007, “because Americans should know what they’re buying.”) As president he has failed to keep that promise, but he has taken some positive steps: his U.S.D.A. has done much to nurture the local-food economy, for example. Perhaps most important, Michelle Obama began a national conversation about food and health — soft politics, yes, but these often help prepare the soil for the other kind. Yet on the hard issues, the ones that challenge agribusiness-as-usual, President Obama has so far declined to spend his political capital and on more than one occasion has taken Monsanto’s side. He has treated the food movement as a sentiment rather than a power, and who can blame him?
Until now. Over the last four years I’ve had occasion to speak to several people who have personally lobbied the president on various food issues, including G.M. labeling, and from what I can gather, Obama’s attitude toward the food movement has always been: What movement? I don’t see it. Show me. On Nov. 6, the voters of California will have the opportunity to do just that."
While labeling should be in the hands of the federal govt, it isn't happening. And unlike 60 other countries including even China, we don't label GMO's. If this prop passes, it will cause other states to consider it, and perhaps even the federal government... and will help us here at home know what we are eating. I'm still voting for it.
I will vote yes in 37. I wouldn't tell you how to vote.