California Voters Can Say Yes to GM Free Foods

California Voters Can Say Yes to GM Free Foods

As we saw last month when Consumers Reports magazine shocked the country with its discovery that our Rice has been tainted with arsenic for decades, we cant always rely on the government to protect us.  In a month, California voters get an opportunity to require genetically modified food to be labeled as such.  As expected, huge agribusiness corporations are petrified of this because they make huge sums of money on their GM product lines.   Monsanto, Campbell’s, and General Foods have flooded the “No on Prop 37” campaign with millions of dollars, outspending the grass roots proponents by 8 to 1.

I don’t know about you but I want to know what I’m eating.  I care about health,  I care about fitness, I care about pesticides, and I certainly care if the foods I am eating have been genetically modified.   All this proposition 37 does is require that the food be labeled, it does not restrict GM content.  Those who want cheap food and are convinced that GM foods are completely safe can continue to buy GM foods.  Those who are skeptical about the safety of GM foods like me would then be able to make informed decisions about which products to purchase.  I don’t understand how you could argue against this.  Believe it or not, similar grassroots propositions have been defeated in 18 other states by these corporations.

Please vote yes on California Proposition 37!

Want to know more?  Check out the article from National Public Radio 

17 thoughts on “California Voters Can Say Yes to GM Free Foods”

  1. Very tight regulation of GM in Europe, thank God. We do not bend over for corporations on this side of the Atlantic. Refusing to label foods as containing GM is a completely anti-consumer move and all of these companies’ products should be boycotted.

  2. I would have to counter that comment, how is something man made going to be good for the body. You can not find certain types of plants like (apples, pears, ice berg lettuce, pine apples and many others) in nature this is because they are not meant to be there due to many variables, thus making the modified plant unable to reproduce in nature unless they receive help from humans by pesticides or other means. As for ice berg lettuce look up the origin of the plant it is a drug called wild lettuce and over many generations of modifying it has become the plant it is today with very little nutrient make up along with corn and other plants also tomatoes in there original state they are poisonous to humans but after many generations it is what it is today. There is no way that human made plants can be safe it is defying nature and the only thing that can come from it is bad. There are to many variables that come into play when trying to make a “safe gmo plant”

  3. This is clearly a no-brainer. The ingredients by law have to tell me whether there is water or sugar in a food product, but not whether it’s genetically engineered!? Sorry, but it’s kinda relevant.

    If you buy an unmodified iceberg lettuce, it only has to say ‘iceberg lettuce’ on the label cos that’s what it is and all it is. If you buy a GM iceberg lettuce… it’s not really an iceberg lettuce, is it? So the label shouldn’t say ‘iceberg lettuce’ – it should say ‘Monsanto GM Frost-resistant Iceberg Lettuce’ or whatever.

    Even leaving aside the debate about safety, food labels should inform you of exactly what you’re eating.

    Last thing, talking about whether GM is safe or not – that’s the wrong way to frame the debate. Maybe some GM products are safe and others aren’t, just like some berries growing in the woods are safe and others aren’t. Maybe some berries seem fine, are sweet, you eat loads then drop dead a day later… GM is a new technology and caution is only prudent.

  4. The thing is… Without GM food, the world would starve and pretty much all of this food have no health risks. The “rice tainted with arsenic” is not genetically modified food, don’t compare them.

    Edit: I totally support California Proposition 37! I just think alot of people thow more trash on GM than they should ^^.

    1. Woah, there is no evidence supporting that GM food is more productive than non GMO. Can you cite one study articulating your point about GM food putting a dent in world hunger? Can you cite one long term study on GM foods that shows no negative health effects?

      1. Dude are you kidding me? Do you even know what “Genetically Modified” food are? Genetic engineering of plants/fishes etc DNA.. To make them grow faster, grow on places that they usually can’t grow on and even change the production of extra nutrients, also increased resistence against bugs (will need lesser toxic), to just name a few.

        1. The problem with GM products is they increase pest’s resistance to crops defense mechanisms over time and through cross pollination the genetically modified traits can be transferred to wild type species in neighboring fields. Also adding antibiotics to food and livestock in the short term increases yield but it increases antibiotic resistance to drugs. This is a massive problem, more so than world hunger as we are running out of effective antibiotics. The antibiotics we have today were isolated from other organisms who had developed defense mechanisms over thousands of years however as bacteria have such short life cycles they can overcome antibiotic mechanisms by random mutations in a very short period of time. The result is in the short term a greater production of food which will result in the long term in multiple drug resistant bacteria pandemics. There are other economic and social implications of the sale of gm crops in developing countries where farmers are being controlled by large companies in the purchase of grain as many GM crops have been modified to not produce usable seed for the next crop forcing them to rely on their companies for seed. I could go on and on about the problems associated with GM food but rather than worry about safety i would worry about the long term damage to society it poses in general.

      2. “Can you cite one long term study on GM foods that shows no negative health effects?” Much as you were trying to state before this particular point, burden of proof does not work this way.

    2. In my country (PL) every shop with organic or “healthy” food try to put “non GMO” labels on every product they sell. Non GMO becomes synonym to healthy food in press or even science newspapers. Is it 100% true that everything unmodified is also healthly I doubt but think about it – is really some “plants” or other “living things” created or modified by man could be better for u than something pure organic? Meybe if we modified ourselves enough :)

      1. Alot of pure organic is lethal (jokes aside). Science is awesome and is the answear for everything. Ofcourse when products is given to humans there should be alot of testing and precautions, but science should not be fighted, it should be supported to increase the quality of the food we need.

        I also understand why people don’t like it. You want to know what you put in your body.

        Kinda funny to see this in California tho. Since this state is #1 in marijuana. EVERY single marijuana plant is genetic engineered, so if you are a smoker but hate GM food, you’re a hypocrite! ^^.

    1. A suggestion: grow your own garden. Just kidding :) Seriously, I think we would be surprised to see how much of what we though healthy is, in fact, GM food.

Leave a Reply