The GMO Labeling Initiative WILL Be on the Ballot in California!

The GMO Labeling Initiative WILL Be on the Ballot in California!

www.anh-usa.org

Tomorrow, on May 2, the campaign will be turning in enough signatures to put the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative on the ballot

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.labelgmos.org
www.organicconsumers.org
westernfarmpress.com

Great work California on getting the label GMO's onto the November 2012 Ballot.
Now we are going to see a massive Monsanto campaign to prevent a yes vote on labeling. Monsanto has already threatened to sue Vermont if they pass a labeling law. What is California going to do, if the bill passes ..... I'm pretty sure Monsanto has more resources ........ This could get ugly. I added some links to show what propaganda Monsanto is likely to throw up.








www.anh-usa.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

this is great news spread the word,
i hope other states will see this and do the same

we are not guineapigs,
we are not GMO beings
we cant eat BT POISEN

go cali

xploder

What is California going to do, if the bill passes ..... I'm pretty sure Monsanto has more resources ........

Those are the saddest and truest words I've heard to today. There's definitely something wrong with a world where a monstrous evil corporation has the resources to overwhelm a state the size of California...

ETA: For those who don't know, California is something like the 6th-largest economy on Earth. Of course--we have no money. Even now the state is reaching deep in the pockets of their citizens on a daily basis for more fees; and scraping the bottom of the barrel to see if there's a person alive who still owes thirty cents on their taxes....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


yes it's terribly sad about the State of California's finances... It is truely sad that there had to be a massive grass roots campaign to get the labelling on the ballot, when poll after poll shows the people think they have a right to know what they are eating.

They are going to need pots of money to combat the campaign Monsanto is going to run. I'm thinking that other States will also have to pass labelling laws because that should cause enough of a headache..surely Monsanto can't sue all of our States .. can it ?

Would they try to get the Supreme Court to over turn the laws if they did pass ?

Still early days .. lets see if they can get a YES to the vote in Novemeber ....

Good.. cause I've signed my wife's name on those petitions every #u%&ing chance I got

(I'm still technically a resident of Illinois, but live in California)

This is GREAT NEWS

Originally posted by AliceBlackman

The GMO Labeling Initiative WILL Be on the Ballot in California!

I dont have any problem with the idea of labelling, but I have some issues that this article didnt address.

1. The vast majority of foods production lines will at some point have contamination between GMO and non-GMO lines. eg... the same trucks used to cart grain, the same conveyor belts, the same holding tanks... etc..
There is an exemption for "traces" of GMO that the food companies dont know about, but in the above cases they do know.
So to be safe, if I was a food company, I'd probably have to label everything as GMO just in case.
Doesnt really help a consumer.


2. There is no difference in the technologies used. And there are many many different technologies used in the "GMO" arena. All of the technologies, major and minor, big and small, new and old, are all just lumped into a big label called "GMO", which again I feel doesnt help a consumer.
Say, for example, one particular specific technology used to mark a sequence is found to be unsafe. Labels wont tell the consumer which foods have this specific issue.
Say, for example, one particular specific new technology does undergo massive health effects testing and even anti-GMO groups find the evidence to be overwhelming and with no environmental consequences, again, the labels wont tell the consumer anything.

Really, I find the proposed "labelling" to be so poor that its almost like having to mark products with "Contains Chemicals".
Very uninformative.
Even the food additive numbering system is better than that.

reply to post by alfa1


I'm not sure consumers are really bothered by the transformation method, none of them are precise and all end up with random insertion of the gene, potentially in multiple places on the genome.

I do not see the benefit of labelling something GMO transformed by :
1.Tumor Inducing Plasmid,
2. Gene gun or
3. Electroporation,
As they all end up with random gene insertion and none of the methods are precise. And point 1 would probably really put people off eating the food (even though the Ti plasmid used can not cause tumors in humans).

Regarding GMO contamination from distribution / logistics channels, well mosts fruits/ vegetables/pulses are non GMO so that's not a problem for those foods nor foods not using corn/soy/canola or cottin seed oil (never used to be a food !).

Companies could also switch more of their products to use sugar instead of corn syrup, wheat/rice flour instead of corn flour. Instead of soy other vegetable proteins could be used instead such as pea / rice / hemp. There are loads of other vegetable oils that could be used instead of canola if they wanted to avoid labelling the food GMO.
Some companies may decide to stop feeding cows corn and soy, never a food nature intended for grass eaters and a great source of e-coli infections in humans (never mind the health effects on the poor cows).

Anything with corn/soy/canola will probably be GMO or contaminated with GMO, so most product producers for candy / cookies / snacks / sauces/ soda/ bread will have to label, but that's fine I think the public will be shocked at how much is GMO.

If it helps people move away from this "junk" processed food and GMO fed animals, which given obesity is now killing more American's than smoking, would be very helpful for us as a country, not to mention all the other chronic health problems associated with all this corn & soy eating (a form of soybean oil has been the primary source of trans fats, which raises levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol, in our bodies.), then it is well worth it. It may even lower our medical insurance rates.

I currently do not buy anything with corn / soy / canola in it, unless it is USDA Organic and I've managed to find quite a lot of products that are not organic that do not use these ingredients..and yippee I have lost weight just by looking for these alternatives at my local Kroger.

There are quite a lot of Organic products out there that are managing to keep their corn/soy & canola seperate..so those channels could be expanded.

IMHO it will be worth it.

Originally posted by AliceBlackman

I do not see the benefit of labelling something GMO transformed by :
1.Tumor Inducing Plasmid,
2. Gene gun or
3. Electroporation,
As they all end up with random gene insertion and none of the methods are precise.

But they are *different*, and with new ones being invented now and in the future there is no differentiation between the methods at all.
As I said, even the food additive system is better than that.

I'd prefer to see something like Genetically Modified (314)

reply to post by alfa1


Thanks for the additives list... never seen that before.

When it come to Genetically modified organisms I think the interest in the labelling by most of the public is because they just do not want to eat the stuff if they can possibly avoid it.

Conventional and Organic farmers would like the labelling to help diminish the amount of GMO's grown and hence reduce the risk they all face mainly from Monsanto law suits and their products contamination of the farmers crops to improve their export market and not lose organic status. It is mainly only the Amercia's that is planting this stuff to any huge extent. Lots of farmers have already lost their export markets for the big 3 crops due to GMO contamination as well as their own seeds, some of which had been developed by the farming family for generations.

Perhaps we could have a code system for GMO's for folks that are interested in the actual imprecise method prone to the same random, unpredictable, unintended effects (not even the same effects for the same gmo corn seeds ) used as well as some info on the source of the genes, which would leave room for growth of the labelling in case they ever manage to come up with a precise method of insertion where they fully know all the expected changes in the organism it would cause during it's life cycle and the impact of those changes on the organisms in the ecosystem as well as ourselves. (Which we are still light years away from I may add).
So could be added later when the science comes out of it's infancy.

JUST SAY NO!!!!!! to GMO.

( it rhymes )

reply to post by AliceBlackman


IF GMO's are going to be labeled, the label should specify what is being genetically modified in the plant(in laymans terms). SO people know if they are getting vitamin enhanced food(which is what was promised with GMO's), or food laced with poisons.

I will be definitely be voting for this come November!

Here's a list of countries (and U.S. counties) that have banned (and/or approved) genetically modified crops in one way or another.

www.examiner.com...

I am all for the labeling, 110%.

This will have a huge impact on businesses, however. What restaurant in existence does NOT use GMO ingredients? Since the "no trans fat" craze, everyone and their brother switched to GMO canola oil. Will restaurants be forced to label? Would they switch? Could it force Monsanto out of the market?!

It would be wonderful... I could go out to eat at so many places again.

And, uhh, some of the planet would be left for my kids, to enjoy in good health.

My post from another no-GMO thread: GMO thread

The health food store I manage in San Diego is very active in the Non-GMO project and has taken a stand to certify that every product in our store is Non-GMO and doing our best to have all organic ingredients. If you really want to get active in the GMO project, you can download this label/sticker and tag up stores that carry GMO products. Its fun and very proactive just don't get caught!!

Oh No is it GMO?
non GMO shopping Guide
Natural News

Originally posted by frazzle
Here's a list of countries (and U.S. counties) that have banned (and/or approved) genetically modified crops in one way or another.

www.examiner.com...

Great link, very helpful in deciding what's likely to be safer to buy for people that are doing their best not to line Monsanto's pockets or eat GMO's.

There's also links at the end of the article on how to avoid GMO's as well as a link explaining the PLU coding system. Starts with an 8 = GMO, but just because there is no 8 doesn't mean it isn't GMO, because the system is voluntary.. actually I was thinking we could start a challenge and see if anyone could find an item in US stores that does start with an 8.

Originally posted by Alchemst7
My post from another no-GMO thread: GMO thread

The health food store I manage in San Diego is very active in the Non-GMO project and has taken a stand to certify that every product in our store is Non-GMO and doing our best to have all organic ingredients. If you really want to get active in the GMO project, you can download this label/sticker and tag up stores that carry GMO products. Its fun and very proactive just don't get caught!!

Oh No is it GMO?
non GMO shopping Guide
Natural News

Nice stickers on the "oh no it's GMO" ...maybe I should print up a big one for the car !

What do you think the penalties are for getting caught slapping the stickers on products in stores ?

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by AliceBlackman

 

IF GMO's are going to be labeled, the label should specify what is being genetically modified in the plant(in laymans terms). SO people know if they are getting vitamin enhanced food(which is what was promised with GMO's), or food laced with poisons.

It seems that there's not much in the way of nutrition enhancement going on ....but my opinion currently is that it's the transformation methods that they are using that pose the more serious risk currently. Genomic expression is a complex interactive system so even a beneficial nutrient enhancement gene could cause serious unforseen implications. My view is that location of gene's in the genome is also an important factor in the overall operation of an organism, current methods just can not place a gene in a specific location, it's sheer random chance where it will end up.

I found this article on Global GMO stats on what dominates the market in relation to engineered traits.

"In 2010, 81% of all soybeans, 64% of cotton, 29% of corn and 23% of canola globally were from biotech seeds, the ISAAA says.

The most common modification is herbicide tolerance, where plants are given a gene that allows farmers to spray them with the weed killer glyphosate, known to most home gardeners as Roundup, without harming them. Sixty-one percent of biotech crops carry this gene.

The other commonly used trait is the addition of a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide. About 17% of biotech crops carry this trait. About 22% contained both genes."

"The crops have been enthusiastically embraced by farmers in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and China. Much of Europe is opposed to them."

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by AliceBlackman


most likely graffiti or defacing private property