Town Square

Post a New Topic

Vote Yes on Prop 37

Original post made by Susan Sasek, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2012


I am dismayed to see that The Pleasanton Weekly recommendation is to vote no on Prop 37. Even more distressing is the reasoning: It is too expensive to relabel food.

I am not sure how anyone who has been in a grocery store in the last 10 years can put forth that claim!

When oat bran was found to have a benefit every product that had even a minute trace of oats changed their label to make sure consumers knew this fact. When trans fats were found to be detrimental every food changed their label to make sure that consumers knew they were trans fat free, even foods that never had trans fats changed their labels. When consumers began looking into gluten, products changed their labels to make sure consumers were aware they were gluten free. I have even seen gluten free on a package of chicken breasts.

If GMO foods had any benefit at all to human health or if consumers were scrambling to buy GMO food, you can bet that every product would be relabeling to make sure we knew that they indeed now had GMO corn or GMO wheat. So let us put this blatant lie to the side.

What do we know about GMO and how it affects human health? Very little. There has never been a well-constructed scientific study looking into this. What wee do know is that GMO foods are prevalent in our food supply and we are not being told. There is an insecticide engineered into the seed of crops that explodes the stomach of insects that eat the crop. Our population is plagued with leaky gut and IBS. Is there a correlation? We do not know. No one is studying this. These foods are being feed to our livestock and our population with no study telling us they are safe for us to eat!

Most of Europe has banned GMO's and these countries, because of our GMO's , are banning many of our exports. Why are the companies able to tell other countries but not their own, that there are GMO's in their products? These countries demand it, that is why! How will these bans affect our economy and food supplies worldwide in the future? I do not know.

I am voting YES to demand a right to know what we are eating. Until GMO's are proven safe for consumption, I am buying organic. I hope you will join me.

Eat Wisely My Friends

Comments (4)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Oct 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm

mooseturd is a registered user.

Well Susan, I cannot just sit by and let your post stand without comment. Labels proposed by Prop 37 would be laughable. There are 25 GM crops approved for commercial production. Nearly all vegetable oil sold in the U.S. is GM. Soybeans-95%, Corn-86%, Cotton-93% and Sugar Beets 95%. This list goes on.

So anything fried or sweetened is GM. All sauces containing oil or corn starch are GM.

This proposition is just plain silly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R.Tomson
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 30, 2012 at 8:03 am

R.Tomson is a registered user.

In response to the two posters, 'Susan' and 'mooseturd':

Well Susan, I too cannot just sit by and let this post stand without comment. Especially when comments come from someone identifying themselves as a 'mooseturd'. I'm not really sure I understand someone using that moniker to identify who they are, unless of course mooseturd actually represents their sub-conscious statement regarding their own comments.

Susan, I agree with your comments. The industry should not be complaining so bitterly about this. Susan, your are right. At the slightest hint of the possibility of twisting a fact around to take advantage of a sales opportunity, companies do in fact update their labeling all the time. Almost at a whim. And they seem to do so without 'Giant Price Increases' and threats of devastation to the poor helpless farmer.

But on the other hand Susan, 'mooseturd' is right. Modified crops are becoming so prevalent in the basic foodstuffs that we consume each and every day, that it will be hard to avoid. But I don't agree with the implied conclusion. From a 'mooseturd' perspective, it's already out there, so just accept it and move on. 'Mooseturd', sounds a little overwhelmed by this and a bit defeatist to me. But to be fair, this is only my conclusion of 'mooseturd' comments.

I agree that knowing which of the grocery items offered for sale contain man made genetic modifications. One needs to be able to compare them with those that do not. This should be a simple right of the consumer to know what they are purchasing. And this must be known before the purchase. These purchasing decisions must be up to the individual, and not just left in the hands of the GMO industry.

And you are also right Susan, that we do not yet know the full and complete effects of the results of man made genetically modified foods. And I don't think we will know this for years to come. Here is an example. In the 1950's doctors started advising women to stop breast feeding their babies and to start using the newly developed industry product, 'Formula'. Women were told that 'Formula' was superior to breast milk and healthier for their babies. Everyone did this. Everyone. Only it wasn't true. It was not until the late 1990's that we finally uncovered the fact that using 'Formula' deprived the baby from receiving complete nutrients and antibody protections from the mother. These subtle but health necessary components of breast milk are not present in 'Formula'. Not even today.

Perhaps in the future, we may fully understand all of the qualities that naturally grown foods contain. Then perhaps we'll know that these qualities are missing from man made GMO foods. Or we'll know that GMO foods are just fine. But until that time, foods with GMO content should be identified on the label.

I'm not over the top radical about this, but I do not believe that Monsanto nor any other Crop Seed corporation knows all there is to know about the human body and its nutrient requirements. Especially the nutrient subtleties in food that not only sustain our lives, but help advance the species. I don't really believe that 'They' have my best interest at heart.

So 'mooseturd', I see no harm to, and no additional costs to the industry. They shoould continue to do something they are already doing, labeling their products. GMO content should go right up their with the amount of Salt, Fats and Sugars that are already on that label.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nosy Neighbors
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:59 am

Nosy Neighbors is a registered user.

Well I certainly can't this one out on the fence either.

In the never ending saga of trying to feed our growing world that has been plagued by global warming, drought, insect infestations, ground water pollution and an ever so increasing overly litigious nature of the citizenry, our beloved scientists have created strains of grain, fruit and vegetables that have the ability to grow in these adverse conditions. What began decades ago when the first hybrid grain strands (triticale in particular) were created, crop yields have increased almost threefold, their resistance to disease, drought and long term storage have increased.

So in reality,"Susan", the world actually is and has been scrambling for a means to increase grain production to feed our growing population for the better part of over 100 years. Your statement that the EU is banning GMO based foods is also false. The trade alone from Northern Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe would be brought to a standstill if any ban on genetically modified foodstuffs were to be put in place simply because almost ALL of their crops have undergone some form of either hybridization or genetic modification.

My final reason for opposing this measure stems from what one of its own authors, James Wheaton, a Trial Lawyer in Oakland who has made a history of (and a very lucrative one to the tune of over $12M) in shakedown and frivolous lawsuits aimed almost primarily at small businesses, farms and agro business concerns. Passage of Prop 37 opens he doors to predatory trial lawyers who spare no expense to milk businesses into compliance, putting thousands out of work, driving up food costs and creating just another special place in hell for trial lawyers.

When you follow the $$$ trail and the vague wording in this proposition something begins to smell foul and very suspicious.

I urge all concerned citizens to vote NO on Prop 37.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Oct 31, 2012 at 10:53 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Sorry you don't like my handle, R. Tompson. I don't think your name is so neat either.

The people behind Prop.37 view labeling as a first step. They want to reduce or eliminate the consumption of GMO food. This morning's Wall Street Journal has an opinion piece by Henry I. Miller, founding Director of FDA's Office of Biotechnology. In his column, he points out that 200-300 million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Every year half a million become blind. These deaths and illnesses could be prevented by the use of GMO rice that was developed more than 20 years ago. This rice has genes that produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A. It's not used because policies like Prop. 37. LET THE CHILDREN DIE.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

A second half of life exceptionally well lived
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 684 views