Is there any scientific basis for Proposition 37?

[chiro]

I encourage people to think for themselves and make their own choices and if labelling GMO's does that then count me in: I don't want to tell anyone what to do neither do I want to be a coward and hide behind political BS and cowardice and I don't expect anyone to do the same to me either.

 

[MarneMath]

Yes, people have the right to make their own decisions and have the power to do so, but does that mean a scientist shouldn't try to give correct information?

I can't put into words exactly what I find disturbing about your outlook, but maybe it's the fact that it seems to isolate scientist from the rest of the world, where reality is we are all connected. If one person wants to make public policy based on ignorance, they have the right to try to do so, but I also believe people who know better have a 'moral obligation' to speak up and defend science.

 

[chiro]

Yes, people have the right to make their own decisions and have the power to do so, but does that mean a scientist shouldn't try to give correct information?

I can't put into words exactly what I find disturbing about your outlook, but maybe it's the fact that it seems to isolate scientist from the rest of the world, where reality is we are all connected. If one person wants to make public policy based on ignorance, they have the right to try to do so, but I also believe people who know better have a 'moral obligation' to speak up and defend science.

Morals are relative and so is intent and both always have been.

All this does is labels GMO products as such: it doesn't in any way create constraints for the products to not be sold, or constrained in the way they are already sold, where they are sold, and also in relation to other conditions: it simply says that if you meet x criteria in having said stuff in your product then we stick a label on it.

Also you talk about ignorance: hate to tell you but everybody without exception lives in some kind of ignorance period.

People care about different things and the things that they care about and value are the ones they become less ignorant in.

Scientists care about particular kinds of science and they become less ignorant in this; people that are sports nuts become less ignorant in sports; artists become less ignorant about art; mathematicians become less ignorant about mathematics and everyone becomes less ignorant about what it is important to them.

But we are always ignorant regardless and we always will be because we never have the whole picture and we all have to make tradeoffs and one those of tradeoffs is choosing what is important and what is valuable to us.

Whatever you truly value and whatever is important to you, this is what you will become less ignorant in but otherwise you will for the most part, remain completely ignorant.

You can value and take an interest in large amounts and you will be less ignorant, but it never means you even have anything close to un-ignorance (far from it).

 

[rootX]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

People have the capacity to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.

We wouldn't need doctors if people had that capacity. There are people who willfully decide to make their own conclusions and go on crazy diets, don't seek proper medical advices. They even enforce these things on their children which I see just plain troubling.

 

[MarneMath]

First, Chiro, I find your tone to be a bit asinine and your rheotric to be moderately incoherent. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it relates to what I said or if you just wanted a venue to spew your philosophy.

I don't believe my comments indicated that I believe it's possible for someone to live there life without ignorance. I simply indictated that if a person, who is ignorant about a certain idea, chooses to act on that ignorance and make public policy, I do believe there exist a 'moral obligation' for a person who does have knowledge about that certain idea to educate the public on why such public policy is bad or good.

Is my view really radical to you or something?

 

[chiro]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

People already decide what to buy given that they have "labels" on them and people already do buy things (as well as avoid things) currently because of the brand, what their friend or relative said, or some other rumour that they heard and avoid the products for those reasons right now.

Technology and skills are not replacements for decision making: decision making is the only real advantage that you and I have and I don't know about you but I actually value the ability to make my own decisions and see their consequences.

Other people just might want to do the same thing and they have every right to do so.

A technique (of which technology is derived) will never, ever replace the ability to make a decision: ever.

If it replaces the ability to make a decision then you are no longer making a true decision, but instead just following a formula without any kind of foresight or real consideration.

If you ever worked in an area where real decisions needed to be made under uncertainty, then you would realize the value of that statement and everyone regardless of who they are will have to make many decisions under uncertainty and unfortunately for most of them, it scares the hell out of them.

The people that don't want to think and make their own completely self-made decisions have their own right to do so, but the people that do have equally the same right.

 

[atyy]

Relevant reports from the WHO, the USA National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists, not about the specific proposition in question, but about the environmental and human health issues pertaining to genetically-engineered foods. The sources are distinguished, but as some are policy recommendations, the reports are a mix of science and opinion. Although it is not clear, these include links to free versions of the NAS reports.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

 

[Evo]

Relevant reports from the WHO, the USA National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists, not about the specific proposition in question, but about the environmental and human health issues pertaining to genetically-engineered foods. The sources are distinguished, but as some are policy recommendations, the reports are a mix of science and opinion. Although it is not clear, these include links to free versions of the NAS reports.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

Opinion pieces are just that, opinions. Scientific studies showing no risk were posted already, and that is what we go with here. And at least one link has nothing to do with food. If, as you admit, they have little or nothing to do with the thread topic, what is your reason for posting?

 

[MarneMath]

I've read through the first two links and they seem relevant. Especially the first one. It answers questions people may have about GMO foods and provides more insight into the possible dangers GMO may have, but also what is done to subdue these risk. I've learned a lot :).

 

[Galteeth]

It's not up to general public to decide what's "not harmful" for them. You need to have technology and skills to decide what could harm a person which isn't available to general public. Having labels on the foods and letting people decide that is silly. If some food is proven to be harmful, it won't even be allowed in the well regulated food market.

We wouldn't need doctors if people had that capacity. There are people who willfully decide to make their own conclusions and go on crazy diets, don't seek proper medical advices. They even enforce these things on their children which I see just plain troubling.

Really? That's pretty broad. For example, perhaps I am interested in knowing the sodium content of a particular food because I am trying not to overdo it on sodium. I shouldn't be allowed to know how much sodium is in my food because.. why exactly? Something about me being too stupid to make decisions for myself? The truth is, "harmful" is not that specific a description. I could make the case that foods with high sugar content are harmful, but it's not the same thing as say , eating plutonium. Like so many things, degrees and context matter, and thinking that somebody in an ivory tower is the only one who should know what's in food cause those darn plebes just can't be trusted to decide things for themselves is exactly the sort of thing people get upset about when they talk about "elitist" scientists.

I think the knee-jerk anti-gmo stuff is silly, and I certainly don't support a law requiring labeling, but the idea of a label in and of itself doesn't bother me.

 

[Andre]

I'm aware of two disputes in this area.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf claim a corrolation between tumors and genetically modified food. However it is not endorsed by the EPSA.

Furthermore also disputed is the link between the mysterious colony collapse disorder decimating honeybees and genetically modified crops. For instance here

So, the jury is still out, imo and it occurs that there could be some ideological, political, economical and ecological bias in the discussion

 

[SixNein]

I'm sure you've all heard of Prop 37, but I'll write a short introduction. In the state of California, which is located in the United States, residents can vote on a proposition. That proposition becomes law if they vote in favor of it.

Proposition 37 was created in response to the belief that using genetic modification in agriculture is harmful. To date, we have scientific evidence to support this idea. Just Google "gmo evidence".

Proposition 37 wil require that, with a few exceptions*, if a food item contains genetically modified ingredients, the manufacturer must state on a label that it contains genetically modified ingredients.

Fifty other countries already have similar laws.

What are your thoughts on the proposition?

*The state constitution allows a ballot initiative to cover only one topic. Therefore, there are a few exceptions. These exceptions include foods sold in restaurants, foods originating from a genetically modified animal (though you're unlikely to find such foods), and foods that unintentionally include genetically modified ingredients.

Benefit: Labeling the foods would allow people to study them in the long term since the foods could be identified in the population.
Risk: On the other hand, it could make people needlessly suspicious. Bear in mind that there is no known health-risks with foods on the market, and there exists a consensus that these foods aren't harmful.
Risk: increased cost from the logistics involved in labeling the food.

Does the benefit outweigh the risk? I would say no.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Really? That's pretty broad. For example, perhaps I am interested in knowing the sodium content of a particular food because I am trying not to overdo it on sodium. I shouldn't be allowed to know how much sodium is in my food because.. why exactly? Something about me being too stupid to make decisions for myself? The truth is, "harmful" is not that specific a description. I could make the case that foods with high sugar content are harmful, but it's not the same thing as say , eating plutonium. Like so many things, degrees and context matter, and thinking that somebody in an ivory tower is the only one who should know what's in food cause those darn plebes just can't be trusted to decide things for themselves is exactly the sort of thing people get upset about when they talk about "elitist" scientists.

I think the knee-jerk anti-gmo stuff is silly, and I certainly don't support a law requiring labeling, but the idea of a label in and of itself doesn't bother me.

Clearly "those darn plebes" don't know jack about what they're talking about if they equate genetic modification with sodium content and sugar.

Here's something to consider: You are a genetically modified organism. Can we label you too?

 

[MarneMath]

That's a fair assessment, but even so, people have the right to ask for labeling of Food and in a democratic process, vote for such label. Should policy be made out of ignorance? Of course not, but I don't believe governing is always done best by those who are the smartest.

To me, the issue at stake isn't so much what labeling actually does for GMO. It has to do with the inherent cost to label something. We will have to regulate it, test it, test things we think are non-gmo just to make sure, and enforce it. Doing a cost-benefit analysis, the extra cost to regulate this greatly outweighs any benefit that labeling may have. The simple want to just be aware, in my mind, cannot justify the required cost.

 

[Angry Citizen]

That's a fair assessment, but even so, people have the right to ask for labeling of Food and in a democratic process, vote for such label.

Buddy, who's disputing the right? As far as I can tell, no one. I don't support California voter initiatives because they often end up doing Bad Things to the state, and I certainly don't support proposition 37, but I don't question the people's right to have their say on this.

 

[MarneMath]

You have to forgive if I misinterpet some of what you say. I have a mental issue with reading some intent or meaning. My train of thought was as follow: Galteeth seemed against the idea that only scientist or knowledgeable people should decide what should be labeled on food. You come in saying those 'plebes' obviously are ignorant. My conclusion from that was that you believe policy should be left up to less ignorant folk. Thus my comment was that that may be true, but nevertheless reality is that they have the right to demand to know something.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[rootX]

Really? That's pretty broad. For example, perhaps I am interested in knowing the sodium content of a particular food because I am trying not to overdo it on sodium. I shouldn't be allowed to know how much sodium is in my food because.. why exactly? Something about me being too stupid to make decisions for myself? The truth is, "harmful" is not that specific a description. I could make the case that foods with high sugar content are harmful, but it's not the same thing as say , eating plutonium. Like so many things, degrees and context matter, and thinking that somebody in an ivory tower is the only one who should know what's in food cause those darn plebes just can't be trusted to decide things for themselves is exactly the sort of thing people get upset about when they talk about "elitist" scientists.

I think the knee-jerk anti-gmo stuff is silly, and I certainly don't support a law requiring labeling, but the idea of a label in and of itself doesn't bother me.

Many people have special medical needs so they need to look at what they are consuming e.g. low sodium etc. But, this has nothing to do with whether food is grown locally, organically, with/without fertilizers, or genetically.

It's fine if you want to put a label to justify why you are selling your product at uncompetitive (higher) prices. But, there's no reason to force the producers to put labels that can harm their revenues. These labels are only intended to raise profits not decrease.

 

[aquitaine]

I'm aware of two disputes in this area.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf claim a corrolation between tumors and genetically modified food. However it is not endorsed by the EPSA.

Furthermore also disputed is the link between the mysterious colony collapse disorder decimating honeybees and genetically modified crops. For instance here

So, the jury is still out, imo and it occurs that there could be some ideological, political, economical and ecological bias in the discussion

Ah yes, the Seralini study. It's been pretty thoroughly debunked already. This is what I mean by it has become its own pseudoscience. They had a predetermined conclusion, then they warped their methodology and manipulated their data so that the results said what they wanted it to say. This is the hallmark of a pseudoscience, it is precisely the same sort of nonsense we see in other pseudosciences like homeopathy.

The reason this is being made in a political issue is because their chosen winner, organic, cannot compete on its technological and economic merits. Making it into an irrational political discussion changes the situation in their favor.

 

[Andre]

Ah yes, the Seralini study. It's been pretty thoroughly debunked already. This is what I mean by it has become its own pseudoscience. They had a predetermined conclusion, then they warped their methodology and manipulated their data so that the results said what they wanted it to say. This is the hallmark of a pseudoscience, it is precisely the same sort of nonsense we see in other pseudosciences like homeopathy.

The reason this is being made in a political issue is because their chosen winner, organic, cannot compete on its technological and economic merits. Making it into an irrational political discussion changes the situation in their favor.

I guess that this pseudoscience mechanism and the way how it is discussed (ie science versus fallacies) can be found in other scienciness as well. But I wonder about the current research to colony collapse disorder.[/url]

 

[edward]

Monsanto Co. and other international conglomerates have raised $44.4 million to prevent California from being the first state to enact GMO food labels. In part, they contend that grocery bills will be more expensive if the measure wins.

$44 milllion would have funded a lot of research showing that GMO is safe for humans.

The way it is now I just look at labels and grab anything that states "CONTAINS NO GMO"


http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Food-labeling-initiative-could-encourage-lawsuits-4005604.php#ixzz2BHgOERYy

The odd thing is that Monsanto spent 4$ million supporting the labeling of foods in the European market.

When Monsanto's genetically engineered crops first hit the overseas market and stirred up controversy in the European Union, the biotech and agrichemical giant told the British public that it supports the voluntary labeling of genetically engineered foods by retailers.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11450-why-did-monsanto-support-genetically-engineered-food-labeling-in-the-uk-but-not-in-california

Personally when I read the label on a container of RoundUp and it says: "avoid contact with skin", I really am hesitant to think that even small amounts should be ingested.

Farmers A may use much more than farmer B. I have actually seen this happen, the guy didn't even bother to use a measuring container when mixing the Roundp in his spray tank.

There is no control of use on the farms. This leaves an uncontrolled variable. If Roundup and the RoundUp ready crops were in a small portion of the food supply, say just soybeans, as they were originally, it might be OK. What we have now is Roundup and Roundup ready in corn, soybeans, and alfalfa with more crops on the way.

As far as I can find out testing was only done on people who had consumed a single GMO crop.

When I mention roundup ready I am referring to a crop that has the genes from a microbe in the seed. This microbe prevents the roundup (herbicide) from killing the cash crop, yet it still kills weeds.

I will get a link later if necessary, but I am presuming that this is common knowledge by now.

 

[aquitaine]

I guess that this pseudoscience mechanism and the way how it is discussed (ie science versus fallacies) can be found in other scienciness as well. But I wonder about the current research to colony collapse disorder.[/url]

There have been some studies blaming GMO, but as far as I know it's not widely accepted. Generally I'm very skeptical of those kinds of studies given the political agenda that's usually behind them.

Personally when I read the label on a container of RoundUp and it says: "avoid contact with skin", I really am hesitant to think that even small amounts should be ingested.

Farmers A may use much more than farmer B. I have actually seen this happen, the guy didn't even bother to use a measuring container when mixing the Roundp in his spray tank.

There is no control of use on the farms. This leaves an uncontrolled variable. If Roundup and the RoundUp ready crops were in a small portion of the food supply, say just soybeans, as they were originally, it might be OK. What we have now is Roundup and Roundup ready in corn, soybeans, and alfalfa with more crops on the way.

As far as I can find out testing was only done on people who had consumed a single GMO crop.

When I mention roundup ready I am referring to a crop that has the genes from a microbe in the seed. This microbe prevents the roundup (herbicide) from killing the cash crop, yet it still kills weeds.

I will get a link later if necessary, but I am presuming that this is common knowledge by now.

As far as herbicide toxicity goes, Round Up is a lot less harmful than what is conventionally used on farms today. Putting this into widespread use would do a lot to cut down on the ecological damage done by agricultural run off as well.

You'd think for that reason the environmental groups would be supportive, but sadly it's another example of environmentalism not really being about protecting the environment.

 

[chemisttree]

There is no control of use on the farms. This leaves an uncontrolled variable. If Roundup and the RoundUp ready crops were in a small portion of the food supply, say just soybeans, as they were originally, it might be OK. What we have now is Roundup and Roundup ready in corn, soybeans, and alfalfa with more crops on the way.

As far as I can find out testing was only done on people who had consumed a single GMO crop.

When I mention roundup ready I am referring to a crop that has the genes from a microbe in the seed. This microbe prevents the roundup (herbicide) from killing the cash crop, yet it still kills weeds.

I will get a link later if necessary, but I am presuming that this is common knowledge by now.

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf is a link from the EPA Factsheet for Glyphosate.

EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a
worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible
commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residues
remained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the
chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.
A reference dose (RfD), or estimate of daily exposure that would not
cause adverse effects throughout a lifetime, of 2 mg/kg/day has been proposed
for glyphosate, based on the developmental toxicity studies described above.

A lifetime of 2mg/kg per day consumption of Glyphosate is a LOT more than residues in food would contain.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Personally when I read the label on a container of RoundUp and it says: "avoid contact with skin", I really am hesitant to think that even small amounts should be ingested.

Farmers A may use much more than farmer B. I have actually seen this happen, the guy didn't even bother to use a measuring container when mixing the Roundp in his spray tank.

There is no control of use on the farms. This leaves an uncontrolled variable. If Roundup and the RoundUp ready crops were in a small portion of the food supply, say just soybeans, as they were originally, it might be OK. What we have now is Roundup and Roundup ready in corn, soybeans, and alfalfa with more crops on the way.

I'd like to expand on what Aquitaine posted. Roundup (Glyphosate) is the most harless pesticide on the market today. Just look at the MSDS for it. If you want to be worried about a pesticide go freak out about 2,4-D, or Methyl Iodine.

As for dumping chemical into a tank without measuring it that is a fairly standard practice under certan conditions. Let's say that the chemical needs to be sprayed at x ppm, and the concentrate to be diluted to that ratio is 5 gal concentrate per 500 gal of water. If you have a 5 gal bottle and a 500 gal sprayer do you need to break out measuring cups? Farmers are careful with their chemicals, if you aren't there is a very good chance that you can lose your applicator license. Without that you can't buy agricultural chemicals, and buying consumer chemicals off the shelf will break you, if you can even find the chemical you need.

 

[edward]

There have been some studies blaming GMO, but as far as I know it's not widely accepted. Generally I'm very skeptical of those kinds of studies given the political agenda that's usually behind them.

And the financial backing given the otherside of the studies. I just think that I have the right to know non natural substances are in the food I eat. This is about a label not a ban.

As far as herbicide toxicity goes, Round Up is a lot less harmful than what is conventionally used on farms today. Putting this into widespread use would do a lot to cut down on the ecological damage done by agricultural run off as well.

You'd think for that reason the environmental groups would be supportive, but sadly it's another example of environmentalism not really being about protecting the environment.

It is in wide spread use and has been for years. Monsanto's patent on Roundup expired in 2010 after being extended once. Now the market is flooded with generics. This is bad news and bad news. Glyphosate is now cheaper meaning more will be used. The generics are being produced in China.

 

[edward]

I'd like to expand on what Aquitaine posted. Roundup (Glyphosate) is the most harless pesticide on the market today. Just look at the MSDS for it. If you want to be worried about a pesticide go freak out about 2,4-D, or Methyl Iodine.

As for dumping chemical into a tank without measuring it that is a fairly standard practice under certan conditions. Let's say that the chemical needs to be sprayed at x ppm, and the concentrate to be diluted to that ratio is 5 gal concentrate per 500 gal of water. If you have a 5 gal bottle and a 500 gal sprayer do you need to break out measuring cups? Farmers are careful with their chemicals, if you aren't there is a very good chance that you can lose your applicator license. Without that you can't buy agricultural chemicals, and buying consumer chemicals off the shelf will break you, if you can even find the chemical you need.

I am aware of how it is mixed. It is mixed in ounces per gallon of water.

Actually it is a herbicide not a pesticide, yet bringing up pesticides;

DDT was harmless, then chlordane was harmless, then dieldren was harmless, then malathion was safe. They were all supposedly harmless when they were approved for the market.

Pesticides linked to ADHD in children
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37156010/ns/health-childrens_health/t/pesticides-kids-linked-adhd/

I would prefer to err on the side of caution especially when it comes to children.

Glyphosate Found in Mississippi River Basin

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909

Then again the OP is about putting a label on a food product not a ban of the chemicals or the GMO.

 

[russ_watters]

DDT was harmless, then chlordane was harmless, then dieldren was harmless, then malathion was safe. They were all supposedly harmless when they were approved for the market.

So is water. I guess based on the fact that people say water is harmless but we know that people are often wrong, we can assume water is poisonous, right?

 

[aquitaine]

And the financial backing given the otherside of the studies. I just think that I have the right to know non natural substances are in the food I eat. This is about a label not a ban.

The studies of the other side have to follow strict guidelines regarding their methodology and data submission. They wouldn't get regulatory approval otherwise.

This isn't explicitly a ban but it might as well be given that it's being done in conjunction with alarmist propaganda on a gullible and scientifically illiterate populace. Just look at how they ate up that Saralini study.

DDT was harmless, then chlordane was harmless, then dieldren was harmless, then malathion was safe. They were all supposedly harmless when they were approved for the market.

DDT was harmless when compared with the alternatives at the time, which was typhoid, malaria, etc. In fact before it was banned it practically wiped out malaria in several places in Africa. Here in the first world we have the option of using less harmful but more expensive alternatives, in many parts of the third world that isn't an option.

But even so today our regulatory standards are much tighter than they were 60 years ago.

It is in wide spread use and has been for years. Monsanto's patent on Roundup expired in 2010 after being extended once. Now the market is flooded with generics. This is bad news and bad news. Glyphosate is now cheaper meaning more will be used. The generics are being produced in China.

So you're saying it's bad that we use it so much now and that it's bad we will use more even though that potentially means getting us off of more toxic herbicides?

Glyphosate Found in Mississippi River Basin

It's breakdown isn't instantaneous. It's used more now than it was in 1992, therefore more of it would end up in the environment from run off.

 

[edward]

So is water. I guess based on the fact that people say water is harmless but we know that people are often wrong, we can assume water is poisonous, right?

Oh come on Russ you are twisting my words. All of those pesticides were originally considered safe. They were all eventually banned. Has water been banned?

 

[edward]

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf is a link from the EPA Factsheet for Glyphosate.

That EPA fact sheet is dated 1993.

 

[edward]

Here is the result of newer studies. It isn't the glyphosate that is so toxic it is the surfactant POEA used in the product.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

 

[chemisttree]

No, what they are really saying is that Roundup is as safe as soap. Good luck trying to sell the hysteria...

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I agree that Prop 37 is on shaky ground, scientifically, at least with regards to health issues.

However, I am for Prop 37 due to broader issues. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the issue with patented crops, and farmers being exploited by companies such as Monsanto who engineer these crops. Evo shut this person down for being off-topic, but if the topic is Prop 37, then I disagree.

As a consumer, I don't want to support the notion of patenting an organism, deliberately designing it to be infertile, or suing farmers who grow it even accidentally. In order to make informed choices regarding the products I buy, I want those products to be labelled as to their origin and constituents.

The health issue may be a red herring, but I still want to know whether a given food item contains GMO ingredients, so that I can exercise my freedom not to support that industry. As far as I can tell, the current laws on "Organic" labelling are also not about health issues, but merely about allowing consumers to make informed choices.

I also think ingredient labelling should be mandatory on alcoholic drinks, but that's another battle entirely.

 

[Evo]

This is why my can of tuna says "warning: may contain tuna".

 

[edward]

This is why my can of tuna says "warning: may contain tuna".

And a bit of mercury.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/january/food/mercury-in-tuna/overview/index.htm

 

[Evo]

And a bit of mercury.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/january/food/mercury-in-tuna/overview/index.htm

No mention of mercury, but it's chunk light, less mercury than white albacore, which I never eat, it's too dry.