CA Prop 37 requiring GMO food labeling NOT voted in -- WHY???

Of all the things that befuddle me about the 2012 election results (well-covered on other threads, so we won't go there), this one takes the cake. California had the opportunity to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods and lead the nation in opposing the health-threatening spread of GMO products.

With 95.2% of the precincts reporting on the live California election results page, the results are:

Prop 37- No (53.0%N, 47.0% Y) Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling

From what I can gather, the opponents managed to convince business owners that the proposition would lead to higher costs for them and less $$ in their pockets. So, here's a big, whopping sarcastic *thank you* to all who voted down this measure. I will salute you with the third arm that I grow after consuming these products unwittingly.

Does anyone have a rational explanation -- other than greed -- as to why this happened?

F That....
I really hope someone comes out and shows some foul play here, this is very disappointing.

Yeah, this one gets me as well.

Requiring labeling of genetic altered food actually works in favor of small farmers.

I do note that I saw no advertising backing the measure.

reply to post by graceunderpressure


The same reason the whole country is screwed up. Sheer ignorance + idiotbox = farther down the toilette

"Plant that cannot be named" gets attention, and passes, because of the mentality these days. People would rather sit at home escaping reality, rather than change it. Beer, pharmacy drugs, whatever.

Because big business knows better than you and overrides your foolish right to choose.

Since sarcasm doesnt come accross well in text, i was being sarcasic.

Governments and business should label everything that goes into anything, i can choose what i put in my mouth but im not allowed to know what its in it and where it comes from? Ridiculous.

Wow!
Really sorry to hear that. I was really hoping it would get past, so maybe other states would pick it up later.
What is wrong with people?

So much for common sense.

It was badly written. It had lots of loopholes, so I voted no on it. I thought it was a great idea, the labeling, but it would not have done enough, and cost Californians a lot.

GMO labeling should be a national rule anyway. Better yet, GMO should be banned, the proof is there.

They elected a movie star for Governor and almost a porn star, do you expect much more from the simpletons of California I sure know I don't to be expected these people are border line retarded... Eat your frankenfoods and die quick so more informed idiots can take your place.

SaneThinking

Originally posted by SunnyDee
It was badly written. It had lots of loopholes, so I voted no on it. I thought it was a great idea, the labeling, but it would not have done enough, and cost Californians a lot.

GMO labeling should be a national rule anyway. Better yet, GMO should be banned, the proof is there.

The proof is not there, this would just of opened a bigger can of worms for a state that already
can not pay their bills..

Very very disappointing. But not surprising when Monsanto, Pepsico, etc spent close to 50 million fighting it.

I am noticing a lot of the non-GMO stuff I buy already has non-GMO pretty boldly on the packaging. So even with no law hopefully the organic and non-GMO companies will continue to do this more.

Originally posted by gangdumstyle

Originally posted by SunnyDee
It was badly written. It had lots of loopholes, so I voted no on it. I thought it was a great idea, the labeling, but it would not have done enough, and cost Californians a lot.

GMO labeling should be a national rule anyway. Better yet, GMO should be banned, the proof is there.

The proof is not there, this would just of opened a bigger can of worms for a state that already
can not pay their bills..

Not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me. I voted no on this. The proof is there that GMO is not better than natural, when you compare the longevity of GMO crops to natural, as well as the health benefits of natural.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
It was badly written. It had lots of loopholes, so I voted no on it. I thought it was a great idea, the labeling, but it would not have done enough, and cost Californians a lot.

I have heard the "poorly-written/loophole" argument but now we have nothing. Nada. No step--albeit an imperfect one--in the right direction. Your vote just said that you care more about your wallet than your (and everyones') health.

Yeah, let's wait for a perfect prop to come along, one that everyone believes will "do enough." /sarcasm

reply to post by SaneThinking


If you don't know why, don't speculate by put-downs.

It was like someone said earlier, basically the state couldn't afford it. More regulations, more lawsuits, etc.

You need to control your YAPPER !

reply to post by graceunderpressure


Well you are sort of right about me. I am tired of voting in half-
baked props that don't really help anyone but gives a 1000 more people a govt job with great benefits and retirement.

I am about less govt. I really don't need a label to tell me something is GMO. If it is labelled NOT GMO that is enough for me. I will assume the rest is GMO.

Any state that is primarily agricultural, and has the biggest corporate farms on the planet, would need a miracle from heaven in order to pass a GMO labeling bill. These corporate farms are a monopoly unto themselves, and they are more interested in the bottom line, rather than what is healthful for the consumer.

GMO crops allow them to grow their gross frankenfoods with less chemicals and less care, so it fattens their wallets at harvest time.

I think it would stand a better chance of passing in a smaller state in which corporate farming isn't running the state capital. California, for all its reputation of being a progressive state with people who care about health, is actually a state run by big agribusiness.

I lived in all parts of Cali for the first 40 years of my life, and spent a lot of time in agricultural areas. Those corporate farms do NOT care about the health of the people who eat what they grow, and they certainly don't give a rat's ass about the illegal farm workers exposed to pesticides and other chemicals. Some of their farming practices are shockingly anti-environment, and anti-people.

A city or county law requiring GMO labeling would stand a much better chance of passing. At the state level, people are too dense and overwhelmed just trying to survive, and they will believe whatever the TV or internet tells them.

As far as the poster who said they thought it had too many loopholes or would cost the state too much, I am curious as to whether this poster actually READ the law, or just believed a synposis in a news column.

Because those of us who have been on top of GMO foods know how to read barcodes for our products and know where to buy our non GMO foods. I've been doing this for years, I don't need a label on it to tell me so. It lets GMOs foods scrape buy without labels on them so what is it really good for? Waste of time and money.

Learn to read barcodes and stop buying major brands like General Mills, Kellogs, etc....

I live in california and even though i know a few misguided people that voted for obama, not a single person i spoke to would have voted no on this. Regardless of cost, we just voted away our right to know what is in our food. I speak to alot of people daily and I still cannot believe that this was voted down. I dont have proof of voter fraud (aside from the thousands of examples on the web) but i still cannot believe this did not pass. Wow.

reply to post by SunnyDee


You voted no yet you are aware of the dangers??? Someone who is aware and votes no? It was a start! There was huge money injected to defeat it. So I guess all those commercials trying to scare the sheep that it would make their grocery bills go up and all those scientific studies telling the sheep (funded by Monsanto) GMO is perfectly safe worked. Either that or there was monkey business. We DO have Diebold machines and tabulators here in California.

The other one that gets me is the rejection to repeal the death penalty. California? Seriously? They went on and on last night on the MSM about "demographics" affecting the outcome of the Presidential election. We have a huge Hispanic population that are mostly Catholic. They don't even have the death penalty in Mexico because of these religious beliefs.

Makes me mad.

Narrow margin, still 557,060 fell for propaganda.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/election/results/race?race=81953222&edate=2012-11-06

Proposition 37 - Label Genetic Foods

State Totals

Choice Votes %
Yes 4,277,985 46.9%
No 4,835,045 53.1%

100% of precincts reporting; updated 11/07 8:41AM

This should be archived by as many as possible, all the corporations outed themselves, now it seems that the need for keeping a secretive profile is over, they don't expect backlash from apathy...

www.noprop37.com/donors/

Donors

Abbott Nutrition
B&G Foods, Inc.
BASF Plant Science
Bayer CropScience
Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bruce Foods Corporation
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
Bunge North America, Inc.
C. H. Guenther & Son, Inc.
Campbell Soup Company
Cargill, Inc.
Clement Pappas & Company, Inc.
Clorox Company
Coca-Cola North America
ConAgra Foods
Council for Biotechnology Information
CropLife America
Dole Packaged Foods Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Faribault Foods, Inc.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Four K Farms
General Mills, Inc.
Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc.
Goya Foods Great Lakes
Grocery Manufacturers Association
H.J. Heinz Company
Hero North America
Hershey Company
Hillshire Brands Company
Hirzel Canning Company
Hormel Foods Corporation
House-Autry Mills, Inc.
Idahoan Foods, LLC
Inventure Foods, Inc.
JMR Farms, Inc.
Kellogg Company
Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc.
Kraft Food Group
Kraft Foods Global, Inc.
Land O’Lakes, Inc.
McCain Foods USA, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
Mondelez International
Monsanto Company
Moody Dunbar, Inc.
Nestle USA, Inc.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.
PCS Administration (USA) Inc. (Also Known As “PotashCorp”) PAC (Out of State PAC)
PepsiCo, Inc.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
Reily Foods Company
Rich Products Corporation
Richelieu Foods, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
Saticoy Foods Corporation
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Snack Food Association
Solae, LLC
Sunny Delight Beverages Company
Syngenta Corporation
The J.M. Smucker Company
Tree Top, Inc.
Tri-Cal Inc.
Unilever
Welch Foods, Inc.

reply to post by gangdumstyle


That bill would not have cost the state anything. That's a bs argument. It is the food producers who put this poison into their products that would have had to add a stamp to their packaging or change their ingredient labels. They had no problem doing that when they started using high fructose corn syrup instead of white sugar.