Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

**DynamicBalance** · 09-20-2012 09:44 AM

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.

How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

**intheflow88** · 09-20-2012 07:22 PM

Bravo Laurel !!

I had no idea.

To add to the list of GMO foods, a new one ---Okanagan Non-Browning Apple (APHIS-2012-0025)
Take Action!

Okanagan's "Arctic" apple would be the first genetically engineered version of a food that people directly bite into. According to the latest study by the Environmental Working Group, conventionally grown apples are the most pesticide contaminated fruit or vegetable on the market. Conventional apples are dangerous, and GMO apples are just a dumb idea - one not even supported by many in the apple industry itself!

After watching the newly released Why in the World Are They Spraying? which is different than What in the World Are They Spraying? I got so angry at the destruction and collusion of Monsanto, the 1%, etc. to create weather disasters via chemtrail weather modification so they can come in and offer their fungus proof GMO corn or their drought proof GMO soy, or swoop in and buy ailing farmer's land (it's called disaster capitalism) that I thought we are asking too little in labeling GMO's! We should be banning them outright. It's just so incredibly destructive.

I'd say Why in the World Are They Spraying is a must watch if we are to have any non-GMO food in the future as weather modification is making it increasingly harder to grow organic. I really hope folks take the time to see it as it educates and motivates one to act so well.

Monsanto et. al have got their claws in at every level to be still winning if they lose Prop 37. Thanks for exposing this Laurel.

[QUOTE=DynamicBalance;157316]Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-20-2012 07:40 PM

So the Proposition isn't perfect. What is? It's a start.

If passed, we'll know more than we did before. And the gaps provide new opportunities for public education by informed activists.

If it fails, it will be seen as a defeat for the anti-GMO movement. Weighing the pros and cons, I'm voting for it. And I encourage others to do so as well.

I knew about the problems in it before today, by the way.

This set of concerns reminds me of the Prop. 19 debate two years ago. Similar instance of the, "The Perfect, being The Enemy of The Good."

Pick your fights. Know which side you're on.

Who benefits? Who suffers? Why?

Then decide.

**sharingwisdom** · 09-20-2012 11:38 PM

Thank you, Laurel, for not only compiling the information of what is in the proposition, but giving good tips on what we can really do. I would never have read the full context of the proposition if it wasn't for your husband bringing it to my attention on FB. I have contributed to the funding of 37 from the get-go, I wanted nothing more than to stop Monsanto and corporate interests from creating and selling frankenfoods, but when I read that the labeling was so selective and that there was such a lack of transparency in how they advertise what the proposition is really NOT doing, I was so disappointed. I invite everyone who is supporting this proposition to read it in its entirety. https://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/in...food_v2%29.pdf

I contacted Organic Consumers Association (who never responded), Institute for Responsible Technology (who passed me onto CA Right to Know campaign only saying, "We are more than happy to help you with questions about the health risks of GMOs, however questions about the labeling initiative are best addressed by the California Right to Know campaign directly"), Natural News (no response), and Yes on 37 where I wrote on their FB page w/o any response. But then Gabe Smalley, Field Director for Yes on 37 wrote me through email. His responses to me were disconcerting:

"This proposition was designed very deliberately to apply to foods sold in stores which contain genetically altered ingredients. That's why meat from animals who have been fed genetically engineered feed, for example, isn't included.' . [doesn't make any sense...if you give them GMO'd feed and use GMO'd ingredients, the whole animal is affected and contaminated. Their definition of 'contain' seems to be exclusively limited].

"What we need in this country, and state, is to get our food labeled. [agreed!] Many campaigns fail because they take on far more than the voters are ready for. This is not a campaign to ban gmo's or anything further than simply labeling products which are sold in grocery stores." [this implies that voters may not be ready for 'too' much and other campaigns have failed when 'too' much was included. I doubt this because the voters and consumers want transparency... they want to know that what they are voting for really has labels that allow them to make clear decisions on what they eat. And contrary to what Gabe stated, it is much more than labeling in how they advertise, even on their FB page, as they talk about the results of French tests pf rats eating GMO'd food, which is grains, which form tumors...and writes about Roundup... and Genetically engineered corn being linked to mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage. I wonder if this man doesn't get that people can do research and see that there are huge gaps.]

Gabe felt that this was the first in the nation vote and since the whole country (and some of the world) is looking at California to make the change, it should be supported no matter if it doesn't include "...different aspects of food, labeling, pesticides, and other related issues." This in itself says a great deal about the integrity of the proposition and those who wrote it...because the world is watching so the 'show' must go on?

For me, I can choose to vote no, which gives my vote to Monsanto and their corporate interests and propaganda; OR just not vote on it, which allows me to say that it's not worthy of my acknowledgement. I'll probably do the later.

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.

How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

**Berta** · 09-21-2012 11:03 AM

Thank you very much for this very thoughtful and detailed post. You have obviously done your homework and have included very important information both about the downfalls of this proposition and how to avoid GMOs in our diet. I realize that this is a very complicated issue and Prop 37 does not address the magnitude of the infiltration of GMOs in to our food supply or the massive influence of corporate power and control in our daily lives and diets. With that said, I am VOTING YES ON PROP 37 because we have to start somewhere and I believe that we have a good beginning here. First and foremost, Prop 37 is bringing awareness to the issue of genetically modified foods. Many people, just don't know about it. With knowledge (and food package labeling), comes power.....the power to make choices about what we are purchasing......And in this case, while, maybe not perfect, reading labels and either purchasing foods that are labeled genetically modified or rejecting the product entirely at least gives the consumer a choice and sends a message to Monsanto. One thing we know for sure is that companies like Monsanto, want to show a profit and if their products are not selling, just perhaps they might jump on the bandwagon (like many large companies have done around organic products), and eliminate GMO's from the food supply..... I know we have our work cut out for us and there is no easy fix, but Prop 37 is a place to start.......

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. ......

....... so check to make sure these are organic.

**joyma** · 09-21-2012 03:31 PM

I am most certainly voting YES on 37!!

If I don't "they" win and they will have more and more power, patents, control and dominion as time goes on.

Not a good thing to risk due to some imperfections in the proposition...

Thousands and thousands of people have worked countless hours on this proposition...it would be very difficult to get that momentum back again.

Voting yes sends a message to a giant monster that we have power and we will not let them win. Waiting for perfection here is actually quite dangerous!!

**rossmen** · 09-21-2012 05:52 PM

ok it is not purrfekt, but to assume us who know the details and will vote for it don't, thats your stuff. it will help me and the trans fat story has been an overall success, at least now i can consider eating girl scout cookies! just because those who know, know almost all served food and most of the stuff in stores is disease producing crap is a reason not to participate in democratic process; is unreasonably high expectation. no i don't think corporate consumption food producers are paying you, i just think you are unwilling to accept what is possible, because you know too well what would be right :..(

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.

How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

**CSummer** · 09-22-2012 02:40 AM

Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses - or it's ultimate effect.

And it's not important whether it passes or fails. What's important is that the truth about GMO foods be known.
Because once people know the truth, they will avoid them if they care about their health - and that of their children.
This is what I see as the great value of the Right to Know initiative: that it has called major attention to the issue of
genetically engineered foods. Much of the truth is coming out, and this can result in the major shift in public
awareness that will be the undoing of the biotech industry. I would like to believe that while there are some who
don't want to know, most of us resent the "mushroom treatment" (being kept in the dark and fed horseshit) and
being used as guinea pigs without our awareness or consent.

If you haven't yet seen the movie "Genetic Roulette," please do so. I have a copy available for group or public viewing.
You may also be able to view it online here: https://geneticroulettemovie.com/

Clint Summer

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

ok it is not purrfekt, but to assume us who know the details and will vote for it don't, thats your stuff. it will help me and the trans fat story has been an overall success, at least now i can consider eating girl scout cookies! just because those who know, know almost all served food and most of the stuff in stores is disease producing crap is a reason not to participate in democratic process; is unreasonably high expectation. no i don't think corporate consumption food producers are paying you, i just think you are unwilling to accept what is possible, because you know too well what would be right :..(

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-22-2012 12:18 PM

`
"Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses..."

Clint, Could you unpack that and explain what you base it on?

Because when it comes to California Propositions, as far as I know, whether enough people vote for or against them, determines whether they are adopted.

Big Agra has far more money than consumer rights advocates and the environmental movement (unless we're talking comprador green washing faux enviro groups).

So most people will probably only see anti-37 propaganda. I haven't researched it, but I'm willing to bet far more money is being spent by the Anti-37 side, than the Yes on 37. As for those focused on knowing what is GMO and what isn't, with a purist and totalizing approach, who are they going to get that message to?

The "average" voter who is not invested in "Deep" politics? Or those of us in the alt crunchy scene, who read things like waccobb.net?

In other words, I'm saying that if Prop 37 requires the biggest and fullest tent to have a chance, those picking it apart from inside the tent, are more influential than those outside, even if those outside have bigger microphones and broader stages.

Among those engaged in this issue, who is going to be able to best spread doubt and skepticism? An ad on TV or Radio, or a community member invested in the issue.

So, yeah, how we reading this thread vote, matters. Percentage wise, it may be a bare fraction, but in such plebiscites, those fragments add up.

It's not like voting for President this time (and most others). Where the results by state, except in the eight swing states, are a foregone conclusion. Here in Cali, there's only the precedent of previous environmental and health proposition votes, local and state, and that record shows that efforts like Prop 37 have a slim chance, mostly because of the overwhelming preponderance in influence, from the Corporate Dollah.

-

**theindependenteye** · 09-22-2012 01:17 PM

If Prop. 37 were as pathetic a sell-out as this original post described, it's hard to see why big money would be going toward its defeat. Most change is incremental, and as with health care, defeating a less-than-perfect bill would make it less likely to get any kind of bill, not more so.

And yes, I think it'd be lovely if we all had the time to research every component of every item we consume, not to mention shampoo, containers, cat food and toilet paper. But most of us have other things we could do with that time, like earning a living, etc. I'm on a low-salt diet, and it's damned helpful to look at a label and see the salt content of that all-salt piece of crap I might otherwise have bought. That still doesn't help me on the rare occasions I eat at restaurants, but it makes a big difference otherwise.

The argument in that article might relate to a social order and a population all in the sociopolitical and educational demographic of the writer, but not to the California populace who actually exist and who would stand to benefit greatly from the proposition as it stands.

Cheers—
Conrad

edie · 09-22-2012 03:00 PM

I am not sure why you all worry so much about the labeling- that scary stuff and more crap is already in plenty of our foods for many, many years.*

Why don't you (we) fight Monsanto instead as some european countries do for years, more and more farmers winning their cases more successfully...???

We should fight more the food stores not to sell Monsanto's stuff- but- don't they get cut out of the market if they don't- will they fight for us, get stuck with empty shelfs? (does not look like it- money speaks ones more)

Some european countries are fighting for the labeling too- for quite some time now.

Gabe felt that this was the first in the nation vote and since the whole country (and some of the world) is looking at California to make the change, it should be supported no matter if it doesn't include "...different aspects of food, labeling, pesticides, and other related issues." This in itself says a great deal about the integrity of the proposition and those who wrote it...because the world is watching so the 'show' must go on?

**CSummer** · 09-23-2012 01:48 AM

Well, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that my vote - or your vote - would change the outcome of the election. If it did - if it were that close, there would be a recount which might or might not change the outcome. Also, it seems to me that the closer the count is, the more meaningless the outcome is. In this case, it might mean that many people haven't bothered to do their own research and have instead bought the biotech and big food corporate spiel. Or they have done their research and decided (like Laurel) it's a bad proposition.

I had been thinking I would write something titled: Why I'm voting for Prop 37. But now I think I'll change that to: Why I make every effort - and incur extra expense - to avoid eating anything containing or fed GMOs. (It's very simple: because I care about my health - and the health of farmlands and the life that inhabits them!)

May the truth free us from ignorance and exploitation!

Clint Summer

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

`
"Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses..."

Clint, Could you unpack that and explain what you base it on?

Because when it comes to California Propositions, as far as I know, whether enough people vote for or against them, determines whether they are adopted.

Big Agra has far more money than consumer rights advocates and the environmental movement (unless we're talking comprador green washing faux enviro groups).

So most people will probably only see anti-37 propaganda. I haven't researched it, but I'm willing to bet far more money is being spent by the Anti-37 side, than the Yes on 37. As for those focused on knowing what is GMO and what isn't, with a purist and totalizing approach, who are they going to get that message to?

The "average" voter who is not invested in "Deep" politics? Or those of us in the alt crunchy scene, who read things like waccobb.net?

In other words, I'm saying that if Prop 37 requires the biggest and fullest tent to have a chance, those picking it apart from inside the tent, are more influential than those outside, even if those outside have bigger microphones and broader stages.

Among those engaged in this issue, who is going to be able to best spread doubt and skepticism? An add on TV or Radio, or a community member invested in the issue.

So, yeah, how we reading this thread vote, matters. Percentage wise, it may be a bare fraction, but in such plebiscites, those fragments add up.

It's not like voting for President this time (and most others). Where the results by state, except in the eight swing states, are a foregone conclusion. Here in Cali, there's only the precedent of previous environmental and health proposition votes, local and state, and that record shows that efforts like Prop 37 have a slim chance, mostly because of the overwhelming preponderance in influence, from the Corporate Dollah.

-

**Valley Oak** · 09-23-2012 09:52 AM

Hello Clint, how are you? I hope fine.

I appreciate what you have said. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically and sincerely beg you for your vote in favor of Prop. 37. Please, Clint, vote for Prop. 37. Your vote might only be a microscopic step forward but it is progress nonetheless. With enough of our votes, our little steps, our barbaric society becomes that much more civilized. It is a slow and too often a frustrating process but our culture does move forward. All you have to do is study history to see it.

If what I'm saying is not true then why bother protesting against circumcision, for example?

Thank you ahead of time for your vote, sincerely,

Edward

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Well, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that my vote - or your vote - would change the outcome of the election. If it did - if it were that close, there would be a recount which might or might not change the outcome. Also, it seems to me that the closer the count is, the more meaningless the outcome is. In this case, it might mean that many people haven't bothered to do their own research and have instead bought the biotech and big food corporate spiel. Or they have done their research and decided (like Laurel) it's a bad proposition.

I had been thinking I would write something titled: Why I'm voting for Prop 37. But now I think I'll change that to: Why I make every effort - and incur extra expense - to avoid eating anything containing or fed GMOs. (It's very simple: because I care about my health - and the health of farmlands and the life that inhabits them!)

May the truth free us from ignorance and exploitation!

Clint Summer

**neil** · 09-23-2012 12:03 PM

I'm voting yes. The point is not the loopholes in Prop 37. The point is that if it passes, even with its imperfections, it will be a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry. That is why evil Monsanto and their corporate kin are spending millions to defeat it. California passing this measure would kick their money-grubbing teeth out. If purity is your thing, then shop carefully. But in any case, vote YES on 37!

**ruthnew** · 09-23-2012 12:45 PM

I am voting yes on Prop 37. Before I read this link I thought Wow, Monsanto is infiltrating progressive BBs to divide & conquer. Then I read the post. It is well thought out and makes good points.

Monsanto has contributed $9,992,000.00 to defeat this proposal. https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaig...011&view=late1 The Big 6 pesticide firms have put in $19 million of the $32 donated to defeat Prop 37. I think that alone would get my vote. But over the years I have read about the suicides of hundreds of thousands farmers in India due to GMOs, Monsanto suing and putting out of business US farmers when Monsanto seeds were carried into their neighboring farms by wind and insects, and farmers who raise pigs for food going out of business when the GMO grain they were feeding their animals made many of the pigs sterile. You can find people's videos on YouTube. Check out this important 2 minute video on the first study of the long term effects of GMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTBX...eature=related

Kelloggs has donated $632,500 to defeat Prop 37. I read that in the 50 countries that now have labeling laws, Kelloggs has chosen to reformulate their corn flakes without GMOs rather than to label them with. I'm voting for Prop 37 because of my concerns for my grandchildren and the children of California, not because it's a great law. There are probably thousands of children in Sonoma County and hundreds of thousands in California that get up every morning and pour themselves a bowl of GMO cereal with GMO milk while their parents are busy getting ready for work and making the kids school lunches. Many of these parents will first hear of Prop 37 when they see a Monsanto funded commercial or skim their voter pamphlet.

In 2005, we had Measure M that would have placed a 10 year moratorium on the use and cultivation of GMOs in Sonoma County. The goal was to secure a moratorium county by county. It passed in Marin, Mendocino and Trinity. But, after losing in Sonoma County by a 58 to 42 margin (and a few other counties) that was it. Monsanto came in and ran the campaign through the Sonoma County Farm Bureau donating about $900,000 to the effort and teaching them how to win an election. Many of the farmers already used Monsanto products and were energized by the large amount of money coming in. Their victory was seen as support for Sonoma County farmers.

If Prop 37 passes you may think we're only gaining a little bit of ground. But, that's better than where we are today.
Ruth

**CSummer** · 09-23-2012 01:30 PM

Protesting or educating has a chance of increasing awareness that can lead to changes in behavior. I don't see how voting one way or the other, per se, will do that. If I act like I'm voting and am enthusiastic about voting Yes on 37, that might influence others to do the same. Whether or not I actually vote - or how I vote - won't change anything (and if it does, it shouldn't!).

If I seem a bit disenchanted with the whole election/voting thing, it's only because I see it as a game that means nothing other than who has the most money or power to influence how masses of people vote. It generally fails to enable the awareness and wisdom that real positive change requires, and it does not empower us to create the kind of society we really want (and the world needs).

But I'll join you, Ed, in saying Yes on 37! More importantly, I'll encourage everyone I know to avoid all GMOs as they would any other unhealthy food. And many thanks to Laurel for listing the foods to avoid!

Peace,
Clint

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Hello Clint, how are you? I hope fine.

I appreciate what you have said. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically and sincerely beg you for your vote in favor of Prop. 37. Please, Clint, vote for Prop. 37. Your vote might only be a microscopic step forward but it is progress nonetheless. With enough of our votes, our little steps, our barbaric society becomes that much more civilized. It is a slow and too often a frustrating process but our culture does move forward. All you have to do is study history to see it.

If what I'm saying is not true then why bother protesting against circumcision, for example?

Thank you ahead of time for your vote, sincerely,

Edward

**datars** · 09-23-2012 07:41 PM

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

I am voting yes on Prop 37. Before I read this link I thought Wow, Monsanto is infiltrating progressive BBs to divide & conquer. Then I read the post. It is well thought out and makes good points.

Monsanto has contributed $9,992,000.00 to defeat this proposal. https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaig...011&view=late1 The Big 6 pesticide firms have put in $19 million of the $32 donated to defeat Prop 37. I think that alone would get my vote. But over the years I have read about the suicides of hundreds of thousands farmers in India due to GMOs, Monsanto suing and putting out of business US farmers when Monsanto seeds were carried into their neighboring farms by wind and insects, and farmers who raise pigs for food going out of business when the GMO grain they were feeding their animals made many of the pigs sterile. You can find people's videos on YouTube. Check out this important 2 minute video on the first study of the long term effects of GMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTBX...eature=related

Kelloggs has donated $632,500 to defeat Prop 37. I read that in the 50 countries that now have labeling laws, Kelloggs has chosen to reformulate their corn flakes without GMOs rather than to label them with. I'm voting for Prop 37 because of my concerns for my grandchildren and the children of California, not because it's a great law. There are probably thousands of children in Sonoma County and hundreds of thousands in California that get up every morning and pour themselves a bowl of GMO cereal with GMO milk while their parents are busy getting ready for work and making the kids school lunches. Many of these parents will first hear of Prop 37 when they see a Monsanto funded commercial or skim their voter pamphlet.

In 2005, we had Measure M that would have placed a 10 year moratorium on the use and cultivation of GMOs in Sonoma County. The goal was to secure a moratorium county by county. It passed in Marin, Mendocino and Trinity. But, after losing in Sonoma County by a 58 to 42 margin (and a few other counties) that was it. Monsanto came in and ran the campaign through the Sonoma County Farm Bureau donating about $900,000 to the effort and teaching them how to win an election. Many of the farmers already used Monsanto products and were energized by the large amount of money coming in. Their victory was seen as support for Sonoma County farmers.

If Prop 37 passes you may think we're only gaining a little bit of ground. But, that's better than where we are today.
Ruth

Here's a Documentary that is a must watch, I had downloaded it off Torrent and watch it last night

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives
Jeffrey Smith's new GMO Documentary

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.
https://geneticroulettemovie.com

**stridermyth** · 09-23-2012 11:24 PM

Excellent!
Well stated in few words.
Vote YES Prop 37. If for no other reason it will create drag on the GMO industry's efforts and allow reasonable minds to plant more real food.

Posted in reply to the post by neil:

I'm voting yes. The point is not the loopholes in Prop 37. The point is that if it passes, even with its imperfections, it will be a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry. That is why evil Monsanto and their corporate kin are spending millions to defeat it. California passing this measure would kick their money-grubbing teeth out. If purity is your thing, then shop carefully. But in any case, vote YES on 37!

**Sara S** · 09-25-2012 08:18 AM

There is a video here about the problems rats begin to develop after 4 months of eating GMO corn:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/101760711

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

Here's a Documentary that is a must watch, I had downloaded it off Torrent and watch it last night

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives
Jeffrey Smith's new GMO Documentary

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.
https://geneticroulettemovie.com

**Philip Tymon** · 09-25-2012 11:58 AM

Laurel,

Thank you for your post which is well-thought out and sincere and has certainly provoked a lot of discussion, which is good.

But I disagree with you for two primary reasons (some of which others have already stated in their own way):

First, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. Proposition 37 clearly is not perfect. What is? In fact, the more history I read, the more I understand that no good has ever been accomplished in a straight line--- when we look back on history we tend to see it as an inevitable linear progression, but as it was actually lived, moving forward without benefit of knowing the end of the story, it was often messy, contentious and with as many steps backwards as forwards as sideways--- whether we're talking about the establishment of democracy in ancient Greece, the abolition of slavery, the development of science, the movements for minority or women's or gay rights-- the reality of all of them was often very messy, drawn out and non-linear. So, any step forward is a step forward. All we can do is the best we can do at a given moment with the reality and compromises that present themselves.

Second, the idea the each individual is going to research each food and product they use to determine whether there are GMOs in it is completely unrealistic. Just ain't gonna happen. Even here in woo--woo-west county most people just aren't going to have the time, energy or focus to do that--- much less your average person in Sacramento or Fresno or San Bernardino, etc. And it's how large numbers of people act, not small elites, that are critical to whether GMOs are accepted in the marketplace or not.

The simple fact is that labeling, even if imperfect, may well turn the public against GMOs, which is why Monsanto, and the entire industry, are so afraid of it.

**datars** · 09-25-2012 07:42 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

There is a video here about the problems rats begin to develop after 4 months of eating GMO corn:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/101760711

Genetic Roulette
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rf0WGBlUk

https://vimeo.com/6575475

**tgraves** · 09-25-2012 11:18 PM

Why I am voting Yes on 37 or What you call "loop holes" I see as opportunities for compliance.
What if the proposition was "perfect" and did not have these "loop holes"?
Let's talk canola. There is already wide spread contamination in the environment of GE canola. The proposition give 18 months to change labels. In agriculture that is not much time to change crops and insure no contamination. With canola we may never be able to assure 100% GMO free, it is out there in the environment. If the demand for non GMO processed food is great, it may not be a simple switch to a non-GMO seed and then the next crop is non-GMO. In fact, with canola, I would not be surprised if a whole new crop will need to replace the demand for that oil (Hemp? oh yeah, that's another story...) From a practical point of view it could take a few years for agriculture to meet the needs for non-GMO crops.
How would it have served consumers to write a proposition that while it may have looked more "perfect" on paper would turn out to be impracticable or even impossible to comply with? I can see where if you don't farm you might not have thought of the actual implementation to respond to the change in demand that could be driven by consumer choices. Which, by the way is what this is all about. Give the consumer information to make a choice. Will that actually be the down fall of GMOs? I hope so, but I don't know. Even after this initiative passes in November those of us who understand the inherent dangers of this technology at this early stage of the game will still have a role in helping to educate others who do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice.
Tracy Graves

**handy** · 09-26-2012 01:54 PM

Haven't yet decided how I'll vote on this one.
Regarding Canola, be aware that it is made from Rapeseed oil. The name Canola comes from the chemist who discovered the way to use petrochemical solvents to reduce the toxic erucic acid content. Whether it is GE or not, I steer clear of it.

Posted in reply to the post by tgraves:

Why I am voting Yes on 37 or What you call "loop holes" I see as opportunities for compliance.
What if the proposition was "perfect" and did not have these "loop holes"?
Let's talk canola.

**datars** · 09-26-2012 01:54 PM

One more good link

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives (By Jeffrey Smith)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCSWY05u4Q
They are poisoning us, and we must stop them. Please share this video with as many people as will watch! PLEASE VISIT https://geneticroulettemovie.com/ and get more involved and please donate whatever you can to Dr. Jeffrey M. Smith and his powerful movement!!!! (Money, time, other resources!)

**DynamicBalance** · 09-30-2012 05:09 PM

Hello Waccos,

This has certainly been an interesting discussion! I've been wanting to respond to some of the points brought up in this thread, but simply haven't had time up until now, as I'm preparing to move to a new home. Also, some additional information has come to light that I'd like to share with you.

I spoke with Pamm Larry of labelgmos.org, and was finally able to get some answers as to why the exemptions are there. It's kind of unbelievable that none of the other organizations involved in promoting Prop 37 were able to do that - the OCA actually stopped returning my calls! They are definitely off my list of trusted organizations.

Pamm explained that the reason for so many exemptions is that if part of the bill is successfully challenged in court, the entire bill would be thrown out. This is particularly relevant to the animal product exemption, because even if the products were produced with the use of GMO feed and drugs, the products or animals themselves are not genetically modified. Pamm said the feeling was that Monsanto & Co. might try to challenge the animal products as having to be labeled as GMO because of that technicality.

I understand where the Prop 37 writers were coming from on this issue, but personally I would have handled it a LOT differently if it was up to me. By far, my biggest beef with Prop 37 is the way the campaign was conducted. Need an example? CARightToKnow does not mention the exemptions anywhere on their website. Their FAQs include a question about what would happen if Prop 37 passed, and their answer is that GMOs would be labeled in retail outlets like grocery stores. That covers the restaurant exemption, but not any of the others, including the fact that food bars in grocery stores (like Whole Foods, for example) would not be labeled. I have listened to many interviews and speeches given in support of Prop 37, and never heard a single mention of any exemption. To me, this amounts to withholding essential information! When you tell people they are voting or donating to "label GMOs" and conveniently forget to mention that not all GMOs would be labeled, that is deceptive and dishonest.

Pamm even told me that she and other campaigners do not talk about the exemptions publicly. She claims that she tells people about them when asked directly or in one-on-one conversations. I can't verify that one way or another, but I have a really big problem with the fact that the campaign does not talk about the exemptions publicly. Pamm said the reason for this is that in politics, you have to have a very simple message, and that if you give people too many details, they will simply vote no. To me, this amounts to a belief that voters are too stupid to understand relatively simple concepts, and that we have to dumb things down in order to pass them.

Pamm was not happy about my interpretation of what she said, and even replied, "I didn't call anyone stupid!" Which is true. But it seems to me that all the campaign needed to say was, "We decided to exclude animal products from animals fed or injected with GMOs because of concern that that part of the bill would be challenged by Monsanto, causing the entire bill to be struck down. We felt they would challenge the labeling of these products as GMOs because the animal itself is not genetically modified. We plan in the future to campaign for labeling of animal products, but rather than calling them GMOs we would strive to get them labeled as 'fed or injected with GMO ingredients', which is more accurate and much more likely to resist legal challenges." I mean, is that really so difficult of a concept to understand? I really don't get how anyone could feel that refusing to publicly disclose the exemptions amounts to anything less than dumbing down the message. It's clear to me that most supporters of Prop 37 still support it even after learning of the exemptions, so I'm really not sure what the true motive is here.

I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing. If even the people who campaign to label GMOs use deception to pass their bill, and if we then ignore that fact because it's not convenient to our political philosophy, we are doomed to get swindled time and time again! I personally cannot support a campaign that fails to disclose essential information and leads people to believe that all GMOs would be labeled when they would not. After all, this is a campaign to bring more honesty to the food supply, is it not? Is it too much to ask that the campaign itself be conducted honestly?

So my response to the argument that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" is that dishonesty and deception are never good, no matter who uses them and for what purpose. I wrote this article because I was so shocked to learn that all GMOs would not be labeled as I was led to believe when I donated money to the Prop 37 campaign. I wanted to inform my community about the true nature of the bill so that they would be able to make informed decisions when voting, and even more importantly, while shopping. Perhaps in my anger over being deceived by an organization I trusted, I may have come off as more of a perfectionist than I really am. Let me make this clear: I would not be opposed to Prop 37 if they had simply been honest from day one about what the proposition would really do and why it had to be that way. If they had demonstrated integrity in their campaign, no matter how imperfect the bill, I would have considered giving them my vote

Let me move on to another argument . . . that Prop 37 would represent "a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry". Are you sure about that? The fact is that the vast, vast, vast majority of GMOs end up in animal feed. Less than 10% of GM corn grown in the U.S. ends up in human food. The rest goes mostly to animal feed and ethanol production. A whopping 98% of the soybean crop ends up as animal feed. Some of the soybeans are made into soybean oil, but the meal leftover (which makes up most of the soybean) is fed to livestock. Same with cottonseed. GM alfalfa, which was just approved recently, obviously all goes to animal feed. Canola is used in the same way as soybean, with the meal going to animal feed, although the yield of edible oil (if you can call refined, bleached, and deodorized rancid oil edible!) is quite a bit higher than soybean. Even the pulp from sugar beets ends up as livestock feed. And obviously GM growth hormones and drugs are only ending up in animal products. The point is, if the makers of Prop 37 had truly wanted to make a real impact on the biotech industry, they would have tackled animal products first. Labeling animal products as fed or injected with GMOs would be a truly devastating blow to the biotech industry.

Another argument I’ve heard a lot is, “If Prop 37 is such a weak bill, then why is Monsanto spending so much money to defeat it?” One of the previous posters gave a number (nearly $10 million) that does not appear to be accurate. I clicked on the link and according to my math, they have donated $7.1 million to the No on 37 campaign. Now, $7 million might seem like a lot to me and you, but to Monsanto, it’s pocket change. We are talking about a corporation that makes $1.6 billion per year in net income, and has nearly $20 billion in assets! It’s pretty hard to visualize such huge numbers, so just to give you an idea, $1 billion is one thousand millions. And Monsanto has 20 times that much! I’m pretty certain that if Prop 37 represented such a huge threat to Monsanto as some people are claiming, they would have spent quite a bit more than $7.1 million to defeat it.

Many of you say that we can’t just rely on people doing the research themselves to avoid GMOs. For starters, I never said we have to rely on education alone. I donated money to get Prop 37 on the ballot! If the people want GMOs labeled, they should get their way. The problem with Prop 37 is that I, like so many others, was led to believe that it would label all GMOs when I donated. How many people out there are not going to realize that restaurant food, food bar food, medical food, animal products, alcohol, processing aids, enzymes, and foods that contain less than 5% GMO content won’t be labeled? How many realize that companies can simply swear that their products are non-GMO and be exempt from labeling? That is my gravest concern about Prop 37.

Ultimately, the truth that we need to recognize is that, Prop 37 or no Prop 37, those who really want to avoid GMOs will still have to do the research themselves. I am certainly not delusional enough to think that the majority of people are going to educate themselves on this issue, or on other health issues. But if a person is concerned about the health, environmental, and genetic contamination issues caused by GMOs (as I’m sure the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters are), and they still don’t bother to learn how to actually avoid those foods in their daily life . . . well, I really don’t know what else to say to that person! At some point we have to decide to take personal responsibility for our choices, especially when they affect the health of our families and our planet.

Avoiding GMOs is definitely not as hard as some people seem to believe. It does not require researching every single product you buy. It does take memorizing a short list of ingredients that should always be organic, as well as avoiding ingredients that are clearly manufactured, isolated substances, and are NOT real foods. There are only a handful of ingredients that sound like real foods but can be made from GMOs, so there really isn’t much memorizing required. And of course, there are non-GMO shopping guides available, as well as smart phone apps and pocket sized guides that you can take to the store with you. I don’t really recommend these because most of the non-GMO products they feature are still horribly unhealthy, and as a nutritional therapist, I want people to be healthy. But it’s definitely better than eating the same kinds of processed foods that are genetically modified, so for some people these might be valuable. The point is, it’s easier than you think to avoid these things.

Some say that trans fat labeling has been a success, or that it has led to increased awareness around trans fats, and that GMO labeling will do the same. I strongly disagree. The majority of people still do not know that hydrogenated oils are trans fats, even though it has been nine years since the law was passed! The labeling makes people feel that they don’t have to know how to identify a trans fat, because they know that the government requires them to be labeled anyway. The ones who do know about hydrogenated oils are rarely aware of the ½ gram per serving loophole. And even the ones who know about the loophole are pretty much all oblivious to the fact that mono- and di-glycerides usually contain trans fats that don’t have to be disclosed on the label. A product could contain significantly more than the ½ gram trans fat per serving limit and still be labeled as containing zero grams trans fat!

How many of you knew about that? I’m willing to bet the answer is close to zero, because very few people do know. In reality, labeling has been little more than a way for the food industry to keep using trans fats while labeling their products “trans fat free”. And it also saddens me that the labels make no distinction between naturally occurring trans fats in animal products, which are highly beneficial for health, and the toxic manmade versions in processed foods. Many people may be avoiding foods that could benefit their health because of the trans fat labeling. Ultimately, whether we’re talking about trans fats or GMOs, those who want to know the whole truth have to do the research themselves, label or no label. That is why I advocate for personal responsibility and self-education first and foremost.

To your health,

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

**pnicholson** · 09-30-2012 05:37 PM

actually, i am very distressed by the dishonesty. here it is: carighttoknow, oca & institute for responsible techonogy, for starters, are united nations ngos. in the past, as soon as i type the lettters UN or NGOs i was done for. right now, i don't give a damn. these ngos are controlled opposition. mike adams health ranger is also affiliated with the un. last i heard he was not yet certain as to how he felt about codex alimentarius! one of the big outpoints here is that we should not be putting so many effing MILLIONS of dollars toward a gesture - labelling - we should be putting our energy and integrity toward BANNING gmos. anything else is nothing more than controlled opposition distraction. since the un funds both sides of all evil, this whole pro/con thing could be completely staged. who gets the money in the end? since when does it require millions of dollars to address an egregious, killing issue?

we are being played, in no uncertain terms. we are being deliberately poisoned. we should be screaming for a ban. not asking that we be partially notified of the poisoning of our entire world. this whole charade makes me sick.

**ruthnew** · 09-30-2012 08:33 PM

Dear Dynamic Balance,

I read about some of the exemptions in pro prop 37 sites before I donated to the campaign and all on https://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/ before I read your first post.

I am sorry that I gave an incorrect number for Monsanto donations. It was not intentional. When I went through the 26 pages of donations on the Secretary of State’s website, I think that I added one donation twice. I should have printed my post and fact checked it. I see now that Monsanto has donated $7,100,500 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

In your current post, I was hurt by you statement: “I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing.” That is so judgmental. You don’t know me. I am not turning a blind eye to dishonesty and deception. I choose not to focus on the negative because I see a positive side. I don’t often post but I think it is important for Prop 37 to pass.

I read that a few weeks back at a panel on food policy in Washington, D.C., which was part of the Association of Food Journalists' annual conference, the panelists were asked what the most important food policy story of 2012 is likely to be. The consensus was California's Proposition 37. Why? Because, if the law passes in California, it's likely to open the door to new food-labeling practices nationwide.

I’ve worked on four campaigns. The first three failed, one by only 6 votes. The fourth passed. The last time we hired a consultant and did a survey. I may not like the way it is but I have to agree with Pamm,” if you give people too many details, they will simply vote no.” I don’t think that means they are too stupid to understand relatively simple concepts. They work hard at their jobs, have families, busy lives, bills, sometimes health issues and voting may be a responsibility but not a top priority. They might have never even have heard of GMOs before. That’s another thing I’m thankful for, putting this issue in the public arena. We were told that you do not win an election intellectually. Almost everyone votes emotionally first and intellectually second. Create what they are going to lose. Paint pictures. Studies say that when you get your mail you pick out what stands out first and decide if you will throw it away. You have 18 seconds to grab their attention. Monsanto knows that. It worked for them before in Sonoma County. I agree with you that is not the way it should be.

Ultimately, what I am concerned about is the children we are leaving this world to. Many have been eating these GMOs all their life and we’re just finding out what the long term effects are. They don’t even buy their own food. We need to educate ourselves first and then find a way to educate their parents. And, I really want my vote to show Monsanto there is something more valuable than money. I see a No vote on Prop 37 as a gift to Monsanto.

Ruth

**Peacetown Jonathan** · 09-30-2012 09:34 PM

Vite YES on Prop 37 if you value your health, the health of Californians, and the future of humanity, our soil and our species. This is the front line in the battle against the for-profit, out of control poisoning of our people and our planet. That the originator of this post feels it does not go far enough feels to me to be distracting. It goes further than anything else EVER has in USA history, and companies like Kellog's have already stated that they will NOT buy GMO corn if they had to label it.

Meanwhile, they give hundreds of thousands to the No on Prop 37 so that they can make a little more money by deceiving their consumers. ANd every large food company in the country is with them.

I will be posting more on this soon, but please check out our soon to launch website at www.KnowGMO.org. You can post your video there about how you feel about labeling GMO's, and share it with your social network. The idea is to have 'People-Powered Medias Counter Deceptive Corporate Ads."

Check it out and spread the word!

**DynamicBalance** · 09-30-2012 10:25 PM

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

actually, i am very distressed by the dishonesty. here it is: carighttoknow, oca & institute for responsible techonogy, for starters, are united nations ngos. in the past, as soon as i type the lettters UN or NGOs i was done for. right now, i don't give a damn. these ngos are controlled opposition. mike adams health ranger is also affiliated with the un. last i heard he was not yet certain as to how he felt about codex alimentarius! one of the big outpoints here is that we should not be putting so many effing MILLIONS of dollars toward a gesture - labelling - we should be putting our energy and integrity toward BANNING gmos. anything else is nothing more than controlled opposition distraction. since the un funds both sides of all evil, this whole pro/con thing could be completely staged. who gets the money in the end? since when does it require millions of dollars to address an egregious, killing issue?

we are being played, in no uncertain terms. we are being deliberately poisoned. we should be screaming for a ban. not asking that we be partially notified of the poisoning of our entire world. this whole charade makes me sick.

What you say here is very interesting. I would not be surprised at all. At the moment, I don't have time to look into this, but I will definitely do so in the future. Maybe you could provide some references?

**DynamicBalance** · 09-30-2012 11:28 PM

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

Dear Dynamic Balance,

I read about some of the exemptions in pro prop 37 sites before I donated to the campaign and all on https://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/ before I read your first post.

Perhaps you could provide some links to sites that support Prop 37 and talk about exemptions. I have only seen one site so far that did so, and it was not affiliated with the Prop 37 campaign. The only mention of any exemption that I have ever seen from a group directly affiliated with Prop 37 was in an email from the OCA, in which they were kind enough to briefly mention the restaurant exemption (but not any of the other exemptions or the fact that the restaurant exemption includes food bars and other food intended for immediate consumption). Still misleading if you ask me.

I am sorry that I gave an incorrect number for Monsanto donations. It was not intentional. When I went through the 26 pages of donations on the Secretary of State’s website, I think that I added one donation twice. I should have printed my post and fact checked it. I see now that Monsanto has donated $7,100,500 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

I did not think you gave the wrong number intentionally. No worries, everyone makes mistakes. And it was definitely a LONG list, so it would be easy to make a mistake. I only mentioned it because I wanted everyone to be aware that the number was not accurate.

In your current post, I was hurt by you statement: “I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing.” That is so judgmental. You don’t know me. I am not turning a blind eye to dishonesty and deception. I choose not to focus on the negative because I see a positive side. I don’t often post but I think it is important for Prop 37 to pass.

Ruth, I'm sorry that you're feeling judged, but it was not my intention to judge or condemn anyone. I think if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that I did not judge you or anyone else. I did not call anyone bad or evil or condemn them for what they said in this thread. What I did do was state what I was observing (that no one in this thread that supports Prop 37 had said a single word to address the deception in the campaign, which was one of the main points of my original article), and express how it made me feel (disturbed). I also asked for clarification as to why this was the case. I even allowed for the possibility that I could be wrong by saying that nobody "seems to be bothered at all." I did not say it was a fact that no one was bothered. Perhaps I could have said, "why are you seemingly turning a blind eye" instead of "why are you turning a blind eye", and that would have been more accurate, but it seems like a minor distinction given the rest of my wording. From my perspective, it definitely did appear that people were turning a blind eye to this aspect of the situation. When I write an article focused heavily on the issue of deception in the campaign, and I receive many comments but none that address that particular issue, what am I supposed to think? Is it unacceptable for me to express my observations and my feelings about my observations because someone might take it the wrong way and feel judged? I am very glad to hear that you are bothered by the dishonesty. But how was I supposed to know that you (and possibly others) felt that way if you didn't say so?

Ultimately, what I am concerned about is the children we are leaving this world to. Many have been eating these GMOs all their life and we’re just finding out what the long term effects are. They don’t even buy their own food. We need to educate ourselves first and then find a way to educate their parents. And, I really want my vote to show Monsanto there is something more valuable than money. I see a No vote on Prop 37 as a gift to Monsanto.

Ruth

I agree with you here, except for the last point. I don't see voting No as giving anything to Monsanto. If I disagree with something, I vote No. But you're entitled to your opinion. I do very much agree with the rest of your paragraph. As a young person myself, I ate GMOs for nearly half of my life. And I had some serious health problems that were pretty disturbing for a young person to have. I can't say that those health issues were all the result of GMOs, because there are tons of other problems with the way most industrialized countries eat (and the way I ate). But I do think they were a factor. We definitely need to do what we can to help educate parents about GMOs and other toxins in our food, as well as proper nutrition for growing children, which is in many ways the opposite of what the government tells us to eat.

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Re: Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Similar Threads

"the right's Obama martial law #fail" and "Diagnosing the Republican brain":Mother Jones

Don't want an "Indian" casino in your back yard? Read B4 voting for 5th dist supe

Proposition 90: Robert Redford letter "Vote no on prop 90, please"

Bookmarks