RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "What a field day for Monsanto, come to California and intimidate voters into doing exactly what they are told to do. Amazing, great job by the world's most ruthless corporations."

Californians voted against a statewide initiative which would have required labels on all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). (photo: GreenBiz)
Californians voted against a statewide initiative which would have required labels on all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). (photo: GreenBiz)


Californians, So Easily Intimidated

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

08 November 12

Reader Supported News | Perspective

 

hat a field day for Monsanto, come to California and intimidate voters into doing exactly what they are told to do. Amazing, great job by the world's most ruthless corporations.

It started with a simple question and a simple answer. Do the people of California have the right to know if the food products they are buying contain Genetically Modified (GM) food products? The answer on September 27th was Yes, by a 2 to 1 margin. But six weeks later on November 6th, it went down to defeat by a 47% to 53% margin. How?

Fear, intimidation, ignorance and lack of resolve on the part of the people of the state of California. Yes, the corporations with a vested interest in defeating Prop 37 where able to marshal a 44 million dollar war chest, and they could have spent 44 million more had they chosen to do so. But the people of California failed to stand their ground, failed to defend their right to know what is in the food they are buying, and failed to protect the integrity of the state's balloting process from being bought by out-of-state interests.

California has the reputation for being a trend-setting state. This time around the trend was set by Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, BASF and Syngenta among others. The trend - if the rest of the country cares to follow - is bow down to corporate agriculture, allow yourselves to be intimidated, buy into lies, do not trust your instincts, and allow the entire world's food supply to be controlled by a few wealthy and ruthless corporations.

This is a bad precedent, and another victory for John Roberts and his clients at Citizens United. Californians had an opportunity to lead, instead they ended up being led like sheep away from their best interests. This is one trend the rest of the country would do well not to follow.



Marc Ash was formerly the founder and Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+97 # great_pumpkin 2012-11-08 08:10
Yeah, I'm exceedingly disappointed with that too. However, what that means is that it's time to go petition the companies who do sell non gmo food and convince them to voluntarily label their products and then vote with our dollars. If that 2 to 1 figure on who really wants gmo labeled is accurate, voluntary gmo labeling would increase the sales of labeled products and decrease sales of comparable brands of unlabeled ones significantly. Economic competition would then push all the others to label too if they want their market share back.
 
 
+51 # Freedomwriter 2012-11-08 08:44
Quoting great_pumpkin:
Yeah, I'm exceedingly disappointed with that too. However, what that means is that it's time to go petition the companies who do sell non gmo food and convince them to voluntarily label their products and then vote with our dollars. If that 2 to 1 figure on who really wants gmo labeled is accurate, voluntary gmo labeling would increase the sales of labeled products and decrease sales of comparable brands of unlabeled ones significantly. Economic competition would then push all the others to label too if they want their market share back.


This is an excellent idea! Once the labels start appearing, people will start buying! It would increase awareness and be profitable for those who are labeling.
 
 
+55 # michelle 2012-11-08 09:48
I use Lundberg rice. It is labeled non-gmo certified. Remember the high fructose corn syrup in bread? Boycotting bread with high fructose corn syrup got it out of bread faster than any legislation. Look for companies that do label. I was pleased that Lundberg also wrote and signed the argument in favor of labeling. I've found non-gmo corn meal but I have to buy it in 40 pound quantities. I do, and split it with a couple of friends. Labeling would be better but in the meantime, support non-gmo products where you can.

There was a very limited response by the pro labeling folks while monsanto and group blanketed the airways with ominous threats about to come ranging from major lawsuits ( lawyers passing money back and forth) to an added $1600/year to your food budget. They covered all the foreign language stations as well as the English language stations, never missing an opportunity. It was well funded and well organized. The pro label group never mentioned medical or potential medical issues nor did they really slam big agribusiness.

Most people are oblivious to what they eat. Look around. The last time I was in a grocery store I looked in carts. Rice a roni this and noodle roni that, all things boxed or canned. I watched the people swaying back and forth pushing their carts and thought we common folks are just cattle for agribusiness. People willingly eat 'feed' instead of food. No surprise with the outcome. It will take time to educate people.
 
 
+24 # LeeBlack 2012-11-08 10:26
Michelle, Thanks for the info. In lieu of legislations this is what we should be doing.
 
 
+20 # michelle 2012-11-08 14:34
If you are up for a boycott, here's a list of contributors giving to defeat prop 37.

Here is a list of the multi-national corporations behind the $45-$48 million ad campaign and the amount each contributed (from BeforeItsNews.com):

MONSANTO COMPANY - $8,112,069

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. - $5,400,000

PEPSICO, INC. - $2,145,400

GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION - $2,002,000

BASF PLANT SCIENCE - $2,000,000

BAYER CROPSCIENCE - $2,000,000

DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC - $2,000,000

SYNGENTA CORPORATION - $2,000,000

KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. - $1,950,500

NESTLE USA, INC. - $1,461,600

COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA - $1,455,500

GENERAL MILLS, INC. - $1,230,300

CONAGRA FOODS - $1,176,700

KELLOGG COMPANY - $790,700

SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. - $683,900

DEL MONTE FOODS COMPANY - $674,100

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY - $598,000
 
 
+11 # readerz 2012-11-09 06:16
Very disappointing. Nestles is the only company that uses sugar instead of corn syrup in chocolate syrup. No more chocolate milk for my milk squeamish grandson. Corn syrup is one of the worst frankenfoods ever invented, not natural, and causes the holding of fat (obesity), all proven, also higher cancer rates. But try to avoid corn syrup; it means you have to search; it is in everything from soda to bread, and ingredient labels are always so small you can go blind.
 
 
+15 # NAVYVET 2012-11-08 14:22
Lundberg it THE MOST SCRUMPTIOUS, CHEWY, YUMMY and BEAUTIFULLY COLORED rice in the world! I was buying it at the food co-op, then about 5 years ago it began appearing in one supermarket after another. You do need to cook it a while, about 20 mins., change the water once, and cook it another 15 mins, or about 35 mins. total, but it's worth it. The taste and appearance are out of this world. Sorry. I don't usually give testimonials for products--but Lundberg is amazing. Mix their black & mahogany rice with premium brown and wild rice. The color combinations are spectacular and taste spectacular. Oh, my, it's 5:30 and I just realized I'm hungry for some delicious rice! Time to go.
 
 
+9 # Majikman 2012-11-08 19:28
I agree, Navyvet. My way of preparing it is sooooooooo easy. Ratio 2:1 water to rice. Dump water & rice into pot. Bring to boil, add pinch of salt & dollop of butter, cover and turn down to simmer for about :45-:50 min. Voila!
When I want to jazz it up I add raisins, julienned carrots cinnamon and cardamom. (play around with the spices to suit)
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-11-09 07:37
I use it to make mock-risotto. I cook a mixed Lundgren rice about 35 minutes (2 to 1 ratio, with just a tad extra water, that is two and a quarter cups water to one cup rice), and when it is done, I dump in a can of Amy's mushroom soup (sorry again for the label advertising, but that brand is pretty reliable as organic). Stir gently, simmer another couple of minutes, and everybody thinks I went to so much trouble... Happy Thanksgiving.

In traditional Indian (and Chinese) Biriani (or fried rice) recipees, onions are often used but not garlic. They rinse rice first, let it soak and plump a little, pan fry some onions until a little clear in either butter or oil (with whatever spice you like), then add rice, stir a minute in the stuff, add hot water in 2:1 ratio, cover and turn the heat down to low for 15 to 30 minutes. Basmati rice needs shorter time, and has a lower glycemic index for those who need lower blood sugar. Peas or other quick veges can be added near the end.
 
 
+8 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 21:34
@ michelle

WoW ! Very informative and highly perceptive comment complete with additional resources. Thanks so much !
 
 
+34 # Barkingcarpet 2012-11-08 09:36
I am ashamed to be an American, and proud of it. Time is short folks, endless wars and fukushima still spewing, etc, and most of us appear too busy, hopping in, turning the key, and consuming along.

WE either change course and become better stewards, and species of conservers, and repair the natural diverse systems, or we can kiss the future buy buy, all the way to the landfills which await us.
 
 
+9 # NAVYVET 2012-11-08 14:13
That may not be necessary. If a product is "certified Organic" then it CANNOT contain any GMO ingredients. However, since my son,daughter in law and 2 grandchildren live in Calif, I too am disappointed.
 
 
+4 # Lgfoot 2012-11-09 08:36
There have been bills proposed by Big Ag to prohibit the advertising of non-GMO products. That's how they'll respond to your suggestion, and why we're not doing it.
 
 
+49 # maddave 2012-11-08 08:10
How could this possibly happen in California?
In Mississippi? "Maybe".
But in California? No way!

The need for labeling what's in our food chain --- the mandate --- is so basic and profound that one questions why and how the need ever arose for placing it on the ballot. It ought to have been done automatically!

You can bet the (organic) farm that if GMO's added anything positive or desirable to agricultural products, Big Corporate Agriculture would be quick to institute labeling voluntarily!

Their fighting the proposition implies their having something to hide.
 
 
+34 # tbcrawford 2012-11-08 09:43
The role of money is huge...and the legislative preparation from ability to patent seeds like car parts began decades ago...when Michael Taylor, Monsanto's legal advisor, helped draft FDA policy. It gets worse so don't blame California for not getting it when our public universities are complicit in the science.

Perhaps if we taught critical thinking, folks would question something considered "substantially the same" as deserving of patent protection for "unique qualities".
 
 
+22 # Billsy 2012-11-08 10:59
I'm ashamed to say it looks like the grossly misleading tv ads did the trick. Big Agra deluged the airwaves with them, using what appeared to be actors and shills playing "doctors", "nurses", etc. tearing at what they saw were perceived weaknesses or inconsistencies in the law or lying about its costs. In this case lying corps. and PACS like Mon$aNTo deceived those unwilling to pick up a paper or look up anything online. You can't fix stupid other than to collect and blow a few million dollars on tv ads. Disgusting that a majority of voting Californians don't want to know what's in their food.
 
 
+8 # soularddave 2012-11-08 20:30
I'm only now learning WHY GMOs are so bad. I've been paying attention, too. I see suspicious videos on YouTube that seem to defend GMOs as "a way to feed more people". That's all well and good, until you realize that you're HARMING people by putting GMOs in their diet.

What will come of food may be a teo tiered price for food, and people will pay more for non-GMO food. The poor will be less healthy unless they find different food,
 
 
+15 # Phlippinout 2012-11-08 12:10
I am not at all surprised about California, People used to think that california would be the first state to allow gay marriage but it was Vermont. California is not a trail blazing state, I used to think it was but now I look to other states to have courage to make changes we can be proud of. Aside from the most beautiful cities and beaches, California is no big leader for change. Outside of the bay area, its pretty conservative.
 
 
+14 # NAVYVET 2012-11-08 14:47
When I lived in Calif (1957-61 in San Diego and Oxnard) I thought it was full of kooks. I met the first crazy right wingers in Death Valley, and the first Rapture-idolizi ng fundamentalists outside the South in ugly L.A., and was glad when the Navy transfered me out of there. At 76, it's still the least favorite state out of the 15 I've lived in. Some of the current denizens' ancestors came there out of greed in the gold rush, or fled in fear and poverty from the Dust Bowl, but most of all it's home sweet home to America's Midwestern neurotics. They kept drifting west, running away from reality like normal little neurotics, till they could run no farther and lumped up in a bunch of identical towns between San Diego and Santa Barbara, speaking in tongues, with Iowa and Kansas twangs.

My son, dau-in-law and grandchildren live in Northern Cal, which is at least a lot friendlier to immigrants from foreign lands, but they live there mostly because Silicon Valley is where the computer jobs are. I'm sure California was a much more intelligent place long ago when it was mostly a sparse collection of Native American villages and Mexican haciendas. I can't imagine those folks allowing any bloated corporation to ravage & ruin their most important food: corn!
 
 
+6 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 21:48
@ Phlippinout

Very astute observation. California once WAS the trend setter in all things progressive, but she lost her shine back in the '70s and has been cruising on her old Rep ever since.

Modern CA, as you observe, has been becoming an increasingly "Purple" State since the early '80s.

In the late '70s Oregon took over as the true progressive trend-setter for the Country, but Oregon is now following the same path as CA, becoming an increasingly "Purple" State as well.

Along with you, I am now inclined to give that progressive "trend-setter" icon to Vermont. Gonna miss CA and OR, but "facts is facts".
 
 
+45 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-11-08 08:12
I am a Californian and am ashamed of how the people in my state were so easily swayed by the power of advertising. I fear too, that how California goes, so goes the nation. The problem is our failing educational system, the pay to play campaign financing system and the effect of poor nutrition on the intelligence of the people.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-11-09 07:45
Time to put the truth into textbooks. It is the lack of education in both science facts and also in the ability to discern propaganda that will protect the children.

Notice that the Texas textbook committee decides the textbooks for the entire U.S. of A.? This is because the big publishers bow to the right-wing agenda of Texas, and no other state set their own agenda. Time to demand reality in textbooks, in science, history (politics), and English (critical thinking); each state listing its demands to those textbook companies. After all, the publishers are only businesses, and textbooks are about the last books being printed anymore.
 
 
+34 # MEBrowning 2012-11-08 08:37
I'm disappointed in my fellow Californians. The argument that labeling would have raised the price of all food, and didn't include labeling meat products, was why many people I know voted this measure down. The more we know, the more we appear not to want to know. Very sad.
 
 
-11 # tbcrawford 2012-11-08 09:46
Did you help promote the proposition or contribute to the effort? If yes, thank you. If not, please don't trash others.
 
 
+24 # MEBrowning 2012-11-08 12:17
Quoting tbcrawford:
Did you help promote the proposition or contribute to the effort? If yes, thank you. If not, please don't trash others.


Yes, tbcrawford, as a matter of fact, I did help promote the proposition, and I also contributed funds to help the effort to pass it. Expressing disappointment in my fellow Californians for voting it down is NOT "trashing" them. It is expressing disappointment and nothing more.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 22:05
@ MEBrowning

To Quote MEBrowning:

"Expressing disappointment in my fellow Californians for voting it down is NOT 'trashing' them."

Yes, it is also known as expressing MEBrowning's Constitutionall y Guaranteed Right to Freedom of Speech, no matter how much the apparently PC tbcrawford chooses to disagree, and thus attempts to shame and browbeat MEBrowing (on a nonsensical and nonexistent basis)into self-censorship of his own valid opinion.

MEBrowing is not obliged to justify, qualify, or otherwise "validate" his statement of opinion to please the personal sensitivities of tbcrawford, or anyone else.

Free people are not obligated to sing the "party line" in anyone else's echo choir
chamber.
 
 
+4 # readerz 2012-11-09 07:48
Best work together on changing textbooks instead of arguing this point. If people in California are so prone to buying into propaganda, it is urgent to teach otherwise. Conservatives will notice that the people are easily swayed by misinformation, and it will only get worse with candidates and issues in 2014.
 
 
+19 # Smiley 2012-11-08 09:54
I don't get the argument. How labeling of GMOs raise the price of food more than the labeling of any other ingredient?
 
 
+23 # michelle 2012-11-08 10:40
The implication (note implication) was that a large and expensive bureaucracy would have to be put in place to test and monitor products. It also implied food from out of state would need to be monitored as well. The argument then went to the price of food. People bought the lie without really thinking it through. I don't think people believed slapping a label on food would add the $1600 to a food bill but they did think monitoring might. It was scare tactics plain and simple. It was the same argument used against labeling things as organic back in the day. That being said, these are difficult economic times and it doesn't take much to scare people. Let's hope we all find some courage to resist corporations and their well funded lies.
 
 
+8 # readerz 2012-11-09 07:52
I live in Ohio, and there have been several scares about food across the country from other states: contaminated with salmonella, listeria, e-coli, mercury, arsenic (rice, even organic), etc. You bet our food needs much better monitoring, and while we are at it, just testing a little for GMOs wouldn't hurt either. It won't add to the food bill as much as an illness will add to the medical bills, even if a person is covered by insurance.
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 17:04
Not to mention the fact that there was and is zero, and I mean zero testing, for radiation from Pacific seafood after Fukushima.
It's very difficult to do those tests, but people have not even been warned.
 
 
+7 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 22:29
@ Smiley

Good call, and you are absolutely correct.
It doesn't. This is just another bit of PR Bullsh*t put out by Big Agra.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-11-10 14:59
Quoting Smiley:
I don't get the argument. How labeling of GMOs raise the price of food more than the labeling of any other ingredient?



They would never admit it, but when their frankenfood sold less units they would have to charge more. A good think in my eyes because it would mean we were eating healthier.
 
 
+23 # NanFan 2012-11-08 08:47
Should have been a no-brainer: "I get to know what's in my food."

And if what Monsanto, et al are putting in the food ISN'T so questionable, or such a threat, why are they afraid to put it on labels?

What I'd like to know (not being in California) is what they said that intimidated the voters into believing that they SHOULDN'T vote for this labeling. It's so simple to say, "Yes, I want to know what's in my food." What could/did they say that would have any sane person vote, "No, I don't want to know?"

And yet, even without knowing that, I'm not surprised because we don't hold big tobacco's feet to the fire and have them label their products with all the 599 additives, some of which are highly toxic, in their tobacco products that we can legally smoke. Even though most states have outlawed smoking in public places.

And the beating goes on and on an on!

N.
 
 
-17 # brucelhill 2012-11-08 12:03
I'm a liberal CA voter that voted no on 37. I don't trust anything I hear or read in ads, so Monsanto didn't "intimidate" me with their arguments. I just think that the GM controversy is overblown and based on fear of science. The left wing equivalent of climate denial. I would have supported a voluntary non-GMO labeling initiative similar to the organic labeling regulations, as that would allow those who are concerned about GMO's to know.
Requiring a GM label implies to the public that there is something questionable about that product. I would also support reasonable testing requirements for individual GM species, but oppose blanket efforts to block progress in developing more productive plant and animal strains that can feed the hungry.
 
 
+19 # panhead49 2012-11-08 13:08
Quoting brucelhill:
I'm a liberal CA voter that voted no on 37. I don't trust anything I hear or read in ads, so Monsanto didn't "intimidate" me with their arguments. I just think that the GM controversy is overblown and based on fear of science. The left wing equivalent of climate denial. I would have supported a voluntary non-GMO labeling initiative similar to the organic labeling regulations, as that would allow those who are concerned about GMO's to know.
Requiring a GM label implies to the public that there is something questionable about that product. I would also support reasonable testing requirements for individual GM species, but oppose blanket efforts to block progress in developing more productive plant and animal strains that can feed the hungry.


I know several folks that shared your attitude. So I asked them what I will ask you - if you've ever had a prescription filled it comes essentially with the Great American Novel. What's in it, what the side effects are and what not to take if you are taking it. Why can't we have the same set of rules for food?

Course I dvr everything so I was able to filter out all the bs, read the initiative and think for myself. I'm old - I don't really care that much about me but when I think of the grandson.... Grateful his mom is into organic.
 
 
-8 # brucelhill 2012-11-09 04:08
Of course the reason why we label prescriptions is because they contain active ingredients that have been shown to be harmful or even fatal if misused or in combination with other substances.

Genetic modification is a technique for breeding new species. From a scientific and health perspective, each should be tested to see if it's safe, which is regulated by the FDA and EPA.

Having watched this issue for decades, I've yet to see any legitimate evidenced that there's a health risk inherent to the use of GM techniques.

It's ok if you disagree.
That's why we vote.
 
 
+8 # readerz 2012-11-09 08:02
Corn syrup, one of the worst frankenfoods, has been shown to be harmful, but once a food is commonly used, it is impossible to stop agribusiness from selling it and labeling it as safe.

It's like gasoline in the environment. The official government description of it sounds like honey, not particularly harmful, but a cupful of gasoline spilled on the ground will poison an acre of land. Environmental scientists will tell you that once a product, non-food or food, is labeled a certain way, it is impossible to change that designation, no matter what the facts are. Another example: benzene in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP spill: this is a known carcinogen, but everybody is treating it as just something that is now mixed in. What about the radioactivity coming to California from Fukushima; that is being treated so much as business as usual that the names of the levels of radioactivity (used to be rads) has been changed to "Sieverts," and because nobody knows what that is, they get away with higher and higher levels. I have looked into the casket of a young woman who died of leukemia, which can happen at very low doses of radiation. And the pastor of that church urged everybody to vote Republican (we didn't).

Food will need very strict monitoring, not just for GMOs in the coming years, or all of America will be on crutches at best.
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 18:27
You've watched the issue, but have you read the studies?
Because it matters who you watch.

I guess you don't think it's weird that animals in studies refused to eat GMO food?
 
 
+14 # SusanT136 2012-11-08 14:35
So because you feel that GMO's are harmless, that over rules my right to make an informed choice? Why bother with any labeling of food, since most ingredients are relatively "harmless" anyway? Maybe we should be buying food in cans labeled "Brown" and "Green" - that's all we need to know, since according to your logic "requiring a...label implies to the public that there is something questionable about that product". Why do we need to know what the fabric content is of the clothes we buy, what's in our soap and shampoo? That information is frightfully unnecessary and harmful for product sales according to you.

You are not a "liberal" if you feel justified that your personal opinion be forced on others. That's a classic right wing agenda.
 
 
+7 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 22:50
@ SusanT136

WoW ! Well said ! And that's even without going into the explanation of all the science behind the KNOWN and PROVEN medical problems associated with GMO foods, GMO pesticides, herbicides and fungicides ! The development of "Super Weeds", the fact that GMO pesticide resistance now require MORE sales of pesticide than were previously required, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Just a few of the reasons that GMOs are so vigorously resisted in Europe. Where GMOs are not flat-out *banned* in Europe, they ARE EVERYWHERE required to be labeled.

Are European consumers so much more sophisticated than American consumers that they *deserve* to know what is in *their* foods, and hayseed American consumers do NOT ?

The apt analogy here is not the "hype" of Climate Change deniers, but the reality of companies that made asbestos, lead-based paints, and tobacco products (to date) who continued to lie and market products to the public long *after* the lethal affects of their products were *fully* known to the manufacturers.

Memo to GMO labeling skeptics: This is one case in which what you don't know WILL hurt you .... and your family.

Please take the time to fully inform yourselves. *After* these agri-giants have succeeded in patenting and cornering the World Food Supply, as is their clear intention and goal, it will be far too late.

And the worse that can happen with research, is that one becomes a bit better informed all the way around.
 
 
-4 # brucelhill 2012-11-09 03:26
Not at all. There's obviously a demand for non-GMO food, and you're free to choose to buy it. You may wish it was easier to find, but if more people agreed with you, non-GMO food would become more in demand and more stores would stock it.

I'd even support using tax dollars to regulate non-GMO labeling, to protect you from scammers.

What I won't do is vote to require all food manufacturers to cater to your GMO fears.

P.S. Declaring that someone else is not a true member of your group if they stray from doctrine is the biggest problem with the right wing and why they lost badly in 2012!
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 18:36
Wow, look at this condescension.

"Your GMO fears" doesn't have a place in this conversation if people are going to communicate.
The bottom line is that the fox is guarding the henhouse, and if you trust the fox, you are the fool.

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe
the safety of biotech food. Our interest
is in selling as much of it as possible.
Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
– Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of
corporate communications

“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
– US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
2

“One thing that surprised us is that US
regulators rely almost exclusively on
information provided by the biotech crop
developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review... The picture that emerges from our study of US regulation of GM foods is a rubber-stamp ‘approval process’ designed to increase
public confidence in, but not ensure the
safety of, genetically engineered foods.”
– David Schubert, professor and head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, commenting on a comprehensive peerreviewed study of US government’s regulation of GMOs that he co-authored

Source:
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 18:28
Exactly. I was like..hmmmmm..L iberal?
 
 
+12 # Smiley 2012-11-08 17:43
Most of the fear is BASED on science and the independent (not Monsanto's profit motivated ones) studies...most of them done abroad because they weren't being done here in the US. It's Monsanto who is afraid of scientific knowledge cutting into their profits and control of all the world's food production through their patented seeds.
 
 
+4 # Duster 2012-11-09 01:46
There's no reason not to label food. There The problem was the wording of the proposition and the confusion that the "no" lot exploited fairly effectively. The opponents exploited poorly explained exemptions such as the fact that dog food would need a label, while beef on the table, finished on GMO corn would not. The distinction is that most commercial dog food contains lots of corn, and if it contains, that corn is nearly guaranteed to be GMO. I managed to garner a few votes for 37 by explaining some of the apparent "special exemptions." Wine and beer were also exempted, but most vinters would rather tear their eyes out than meddle with a reliable grape varietal and most beer uses neither corn nor soy, and microbreweries would happily label their beer to stick InBev in the eye. The threat of increased food costs also worked against the proposition and were not countered effectively.
 
 
+6 # EternalTruth 2012-11-09 11:55
"Requiring a GM label implies to the public that there is something questionable about that product."

Wtf? Based on this argument, virtually none of our food should labeled. GM foods are a different product and should be labeled as such regardless of their safety. And there is in fact plenty of scientific evidence that the food as well as the pestice residue on it, is harmful. I have a right to know what products have that crap in it regardless of how safe YOU think it is.
 
 
+32 # patmonk 2012-11-08 08:53
WE ARE 6 MILLION STRONG DESPITE MONSANTO'S TENS OF MILLIONS.
WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT.
 
 
+12 # Street Level 2012-11-08 11:05
Here, Here, Pat! I'm so with you on that.
This is not over, not by a long shot!
 
 
+29 # mitchell donian 2012-11-08 08:58
Now is the time to galvanize the 47% who were paying attention and turn this vote around by putting up another referendum and beat the corporate interests into a pulp next time. Go to it!
 
 
+9 # Old Uncle Dave 2012-11-08 09:04
From beyond the grave, Edward Bernays is laughing at California voters.
 
 
+19 # tbcrawford 2012-11-08 09:37
Hugely disappointing but they had to spend $46 million to scare people who are barely able to afford food. As you know, emotion trumps rationality. We haven't lost, only temporarily set back; the discussion is open, nation wide! It's a very complex issue starting with the name "transgenic"--a cross species modification... as opposed to selective breeding within a species. California leads the nation in many positive ways so please wipe that smug smile off your face and use your pen for more positive purposes! Did any other state even express concern about this issue? Caution is better than ignorance!
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 19:15
California's countless laws are a very good thing for advertisers. They are happy!
 
 
+19 # helalan 2012-11-08 09:48
I completely agree with your sentiments Marc but did you see the ads against this measure? Diabolically clever and aimed at just the people who were likely to support it. In the absence of a well financed campaign on the pro side it's not surprising people were swayed. We need full disclosure of where the money for ads comes from
 
 
+6 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 22:55
@ helalan

We *ALSO* need to reinstate the "Truth In Advertizing" laws that were so effective in this Country before Republicans (and corporate-owned Democrats) managed to have them all gutted, neutered and removed.
 
 
+3 # readerz 2012-11-09 08:11
How about also truth in news stations (such as Fox) or very clear announcements and running words at the bottom of the screen "opinion, not fact."

When the communists ruled the Soviet Union, the newspapers only told people what the government wanted people to hear. One newspaper was called "The Truth," and the other newspaper was called "The News." I heard that the people said that there is no news in The Truth and no truth in The News.

That's about the way newspapers are run in Japan, and the big advertisers in big media here now too, but laws can force them (somewhat) to at least tell us when they have no facts.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2012-11-10 00:36
@ readerz

Correct you are ! The trash that now passes as news does so because the Republicans (and corporate owned Democrats) abolished what was called the "Equal Time" laws.

Those laws held that, if you used the public air waves to promote or advocate for any political or ideological position, the station airing your piece was required by law to provide "Equal Time" (at no cost) for a rebuttal of your position by anyone who cared to make one.

Yet another law in favor of The People that ended up on the floor of our hacksaw House and Senate.

The "Equal Time" laws had to be gutted in order to make room for the likes of Rush, Hannity, et al. None of them could withstand a reasonable rebuttal for five mintues.
 
 
+9 # noitall 2012-11-08 10:04
The Fooling of the Fools in California should be used as a catalyst to catch the eye and interest in the rest of the nation as to Monsanto, et.al's tactics (and the laziness of Americans, too lazy to look beyond the "authorative directive"). Too 'busy' to inform themselves in order to form a critical thought. It is insane that people would vote FOR ignorance of what they consume. Here comes soylent green. A clear reason to get money out of politics and truth in advertising.
 
 
+4 # Sophie 2012-11-08 11:12
47% of Californian's voted FOR Prop 37. The more conservative inland farming communities voted against it. Voters were told that food prices would be raised if GMO labeling went into effect. It's not okay for Monsanto to lie and misinform voters what Prop 37 would actually have done. In the end, it was all about the money Monsanto, and agricultural corporations could use to defeat it--proponents of Prop 37 barely had any ads on the teevee, etc.
It's also nice to see that Ash's belittling of CA voters influenced readers of RSN. Not cool. Most Californian's are not "fools" but perhaps you and Marc Ash are.
 
 
+15 # boadacia 2012-11-08 10:07
The threat of raising food prices if food has to be labeled is called blackmail. Isn't that illegal?
 
 
-26 # happycamper690 2012-11-08 10:08
I really wish RSN was not so hell-bent on this issue. Most scientists argue that concerns about GMO are unfounded. The Oct. 26 issue of "Science" published by the unbiased and uncommerically affected American Association for the Advancement of Science argues that opposition to labeling food will mainly affect research in developing more healthy and higher yielding food. A huge fraction of world population this century will not survive or will be consistently hungry without continued development of GMOs. Advances in plant genetics must continue to be commericalized. It is an entirely different issue that Monsanto and other agribusiness giants have done bad things to farmers. I urge RSN readers to not mix up these issues.
 
 
+16 # Street Level 2012-11-08 12:16
While I can understand your defense of science and it's needed role in our future, I can't understand how anyone could think a plant that can survive high doses of weed killer is safe to eat without some kind of consequence?
GMO's will not solve world hunger the way waste, chemical and mono-cropping reduction can. Industry refuses this idea because there's no money in using common sense practices.

Labeling is not about being against genetic science, it's about being forced lab rats on a scale involving nations of people, animals, plants and ecosystems.
Even science can't dispute the damage of long term glyphosate application has on the soil alone.

This might be a great time for the pro-plant-genet ic scientists to separate themselves from Monsanto and the other agribusiness giants that have done bad things to farmers, and then see how fast the RoundUp steeped research dollars disappear.
GMO's may play a part in the future but much more research is needed to determine it's usefulness but I don't believe what's on the market right now should be there unlabeled.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-11-09 08:19
Worse yet, when pesticides are spliced into the genetics of crops, such as extra cyanide in lima beans. My family used to be able to eat lima beans, but now we go into shock with a severe allergy. We can almost tell just which products are GMO, because those as the products we can no longer eat; our bodies know. Once something bad is spliced into DNA, pollination almost guarantees that it will never go away. We now avoid most corn and some wheat. I will eat a nectarine, because that is simple cross-breeding, and not a gene-spliced product with genes for pesticides spliced in. These GMO crops are called "resistant," but we are high up in the food chain, and those "resistant" poisons gather in us. Well, my husband has cancer now, so I guess I have an axe to grind; all the "corn-finished" meat has too much fat in it anyway no matter whether it is GMO corn or not. Eat grass-fed or don't eat meat.
 
 
-4 # David Heizer 2012-11-09 20:53
The problem here is that you folks are equating all GM with weed-killer-tol erance and built-in insectide.

I voted against Prop. 37 (and no, I wasn't "intimidated" by Monsanto; I never read their literature; I read the statute itself, applied my own common sense, and then measured those against the L.A. Times's well-thought-ou t arguments against it) for two reasons:

1. Proving a negative is notoriously problematic. This measure would have forced all food manufacturers, large and small (not only the food giants), to verify with the suppliers of all their agreements, who would then need to verify with all their suppliers, and enforcement would largely be through litigation by citizens who suspect an infraction. That struck me as a bureaucratic nightmare (and I did not get that from Monsanto, merely my own common sense).

2. You can do almost anything with GM. Besides Monsanto's nefarious doings (which desperately need to be curtailed by the FDA), others have removed allergens from foods, others are working on "changing the locks" so blight won't wipe out, say, the worldwide banana crop, and many, many other things. To use the drug store analogy above, the label "may contain GMOs" (and be sure, that's what they'd fall back on, just to cover their asses) would be like every bottle in Rite Aid being labeled, "may contain drugs."
 
 
+3 # EternalTruth 2012-11-09 22:37
"You can do almost anything with GM..."
I don't care if they can make corn that cures cancer, aids, and autism, while reversing all negative effects of aging, making us all look and feel like we're 22, all with no negative side effects. I still have a right to know that the corn I'm eating is not natural corn. If somone thinks I should be eating it anyway, it's up to them to convince me that their corn is better (or just as good), and up to me to make up my own mind. A GMO label would let consumers know that the food has been messed with. It's up to the companies messing with the food to convince me that it's good for me. If they can spend 50 million to hide it, instead of trying to convince me that it's safe, I'm pretty sure they know they've got something to hide.
 
 
+6 # NAVYVET 2012-11-08 14:59
I too support science, and want the world's poor to survive. However, scientists disagree on GMO safety. The latest Scientific American online reports had one by a scientist who opposed labeling--but in the replies to his report he was inundated with irate letters from other, equally reputable, researchers who warned him with this caution: Until all the evidence is in, stay on the safe side! Let people know what is in their food.

Some of these repliers pointed out that enough evidence is in to order Monsanto's Roundup off the market, and that food for human and animal consumption has been contaminated for years.
 
 
+9 # DPM 2012-11-08 18:59
Camper-Believe or don't believe. All that is being asked is that the products be labeled so you have a choice. Isn't that what we all want? Choices?
 
 
+6 # Smiley 2012-11-08 22:25
There has also been plenty of evidence that GMO roundup ready crops are NOT more productive than traditional crops and that because of the chelating properties of roundup those crops are missing essential minerals. This is also causing unprecedented health problems to farm animals fed on GMO grains. (no studies yet, but plenty of convincing anecdotal evidence). Then there are the controlled studies in France where GMO fed rats developed a high incidence of tumors after 3 months (Monsanto's studies ended at 3 Months) Science is NOT on Monsanto's side here.
 
 
+6 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 23:17
@ happycamper690

With all due respect, you have been misled by what one would expect to be a highly reputable science magazine.

We used to respect Stanford University as an Independent Research University as well, until they released a fully bogus report a few months back claiming no advantage in organic foods over conventionally (chemically)gro wn foods.

To no one's huge surprise, said Study turned out to be fully funded by Cargill, one of the Major Agri-Giants.

Like the tobacco "scientists", and our Extraction-Indu stry owned Climate Change denier "scientists", GMO now owns and controls their own "scientists", and they are insinuating themselves into every possible bastion of previously trust-worthy science.

GMOs have not had as much success creating a strangle-hold in Europe, so while there is access to information, consider the work of European Science in the area of GMOs. That's why GMOs are widely banned in Europe. And Europe also has people to feed.

The medical and environmental dangers of GMOs are fully documented right here in the U.S., as a little time with a search engine will verify.

We must now all fully educate ourselves, rather than believing the very first thing we read, no matter how previously reliable the source.

A good start is www.organicconsumers.org which will provide useful data and many helpful links to other research sites as well.
 
 
+2 # NOMINAE 2012-11-09 07:19
CORRECTION:

Quoting NOMINAE: "A good start is www.organicconsumers.org which will provide useful data and many helpful links to other research sites as well."

That website is actually:
www.organicconsumersassociation.org

Sorry for any inconvenience.
 
 
+13 # cafetomo 2012-11-08 10:12
Oh, but we ARE a trend setting state. The trending is toward massive funding to purchase or prevent legislation. Federal law was changed to enable this, so we should not be surprised to see interstate trucks being driven through allowances that corporations have bought and paid for. There is an increasingly proven threshold at which a majority of voters can be dis-informed enough to guarantee almost any outcome. So long as apathy and ignorance is a tendency of the majority, we obligingly lend ourselves to being herded about in mass hysteria.

The presidency seems an exception, but only marginally. In the long run and larger scheme, it amounts to the unruly mob, thrown a bone.

They'll be keeping the carcass.

The mandate of cancerous consumerism was achieved by stampeding fear and ignorance, while appealing to greed. All baser motivations, not given to excepting themselves in light of reason. Until general information becomes common knowledge, expect little success in achieving what should be well within the allowances of human dignity. Otherwise, the moneyed designs of inexorable interests subsume individual majority, one minority at a time.
 
 
+13 # granny6 2012-11-08 10:13
Too bad there were so many wimps in CA. It now means that at age 72 I am going to have to grow more of my own food. Veggies are easy but time consuming. But chickens etc need more care to protect from predators. I am disabled from a broken back and limited in how much I can do. I live in a agricultural area but he number of chemicals applied to the fields around here killed many of the pollinators needed for my crops. So I have plant more to encourage pollinators. I'd raise honey bees but I reacted to their stings.I guess I'll just have to put a hex on the dumb voter in CA and the chemical companies. ZAP!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
 
 
+13 # Majikman 2012-11-08 10:18
This fight is not over. Although I haven't read the bill, I heard an interview on lefty radio(NOT NPR), that the bill was poorly written with unintended and onerous consequences for the organic farmer. If you recall, the original battle in the dairy industry for labeling "rBST" products also failed.
As the public becomes more aware and better informed, the fight will gain momentum and we WILL win.
 
 
+2 # David Heizer 2012-11-09 21:01
Being a California voter, I did read the bill. While my analysis skills are limited compared to more expert analysts, it seemed that way to me, as well. The L.A. Times's well-thought-ou t recommendation against it clinched it for me.

Part of the problem, I think, is the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. Another part is the lump demonizing of ALL GMOs, regardless of what, exactly, the GM is. As written, for those who are defending their right to be informed consumers, a label saying "contains GMOs" is similarly informative to a can labeled, "contains food."
 
 
+9 # Marcymom 2012-11-08 10:19
For the first time I feel embarrassed to be to be a Californian. I think the idea of non-GMO foods to label it as such is a good idea until the time when people get a clue.
 
 
+7 # Sophie 2012-11-08 11:29
Don't be embarrassed, just learn WHY Prop 37 did not pass. This hack piece denigrating CA voters does not inform readers about anything, other than to vilify CA.
53 to 47% shows that many Californian's DID vote for 37, myself included. Other propositions passed that are progressive--Pr op 37 was about scaring the bejesus out of the very large farming/agricul tural sections of CA--and it worked. But the fight is not over.
read:
http://www.montereyherald.com/politics-local/ci_21950655/proposition-37-defeated-food-movement-vows-fight
 
 
+2 # David Heizer 2012-11-09 21:04
53%-47% is "soundly defeated" and "trounced"?
 
 
+5 # mjc 2012-11-08 11:42
Quoting Marcymom:
For the first time I feel embarrassed to be to be a Californian. I think the idea of non-GMO foods to label it as such is a good idea until the time when people get a clue.

Think that is a great idea.
 
 
+5 # Texas Aggie 2012-11-08 10:53
People should know what is in their food. Upton Sinclair made that obvious. But on the other hand, it helps to know about things that are actually important, like pesticides on the veggies, arsenic in the rice, mercury in the fish, rather than something made up by some scare mongers. Using the same tactics that those people opposed to grafting used decades ago doesn't make a very good argument.
 
 
+8 # jerryball 2012-11-08 11:26
This goes far more than simple grafting. This is putting animal genes into the core of the vegetables. There is lizard meat mized in with the stew of genes of vegetables and God knows what else. Now we'll never know what we're putting into our bodies. This is playing God because we can, but I don't trust the enablers. Monsanto has never been known for their honesty or empathy. They forget they, too, live on this planet and like a rabid religionist are making us part of their church of frankenstein.
 
 
+7 # angelfish 2012-11-08 11:08
Ignorance is bliss when it's folly to be wise. The sad thing about this whole business is that it affects EVERY man, woman and child in America. Monsanto and it's compadres have us in their grip and will CONTINUE to poison us as long as we LET them! Americans, Why do you think your children are suffering from more and more severe food allergies, upper respiratory illnesses and digestive problems? Genetically altered food is causing Cancer in Lab animals! WAKE UP! Call you Congressman and DEMAND action! The life you save my be your own or that of a loved one!
 
 
+5 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 23:35
@ angelfish

Not only is GMO causing cancer in lab animals, it is also proven to cause reactivity in people with allergies and food sensitivities.

As these GMO geeks splice DNA from Brazil Nuts into vegetables, people with nut allergies are now PROVEN to also become allergic to the nut/veggie frankenfoods
resulting from the gene splicing. These people will be facing the fact of fewer and fewer foods that they can safely eat, and they are simply the "canaries in the coal mine" for the rest of the Human Genome.

In addition, there is no way of knowing when they splice DNA for *one* characteristic that they are not causing an entire chain reaction of other changes to the resulting DNA in the new combination. This is to date, total "grope in the dark" science until it has been longer on the testing tables.

This is only scratching the surface of already KNOWN dangers of GMOs. 98% of *THIS* "iceberg" is still underwater. !
 
 
+7 # jerryball 2012-11-08 11:12
Just the thought that that broccoli or beef might be grown with monkey or lizard meat in it is enough to turn my stomach. The biggest areas that voted against labeling GMOs were the produce growing area rubes and they were afraid it would affect their bottom line. As far as California being s trend-setting state, read Proposition 8 which passed making California one of the LAST in equality. The new California is full of "I've got mine, screw you" rubes for the past few years. We have become a South of Mason-Dixon state.
 
 
+9 # Sophie 2012-11-08 11:21
Thanks for the hit piece on CA voters, Mr.Ash. Before you bash CA why don't you examine facts? Read this:

With Proposition 37 defeated, food movement vows to fight on
By Dana Hull
mercury news
Posted: 11/07/2012
The statewide ballot initiative to label genetically engineered food known as Proposition 37 was defeated on Election Day but drew strong support along California's liberal coast.
While defeated by voters statewide 53 percent to 47 percent, the measure was endorsed by more than 65 percent of voters in San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Humboldt counties.
It was rejected in nearly all of the more conservative inland counties, including the state's agricultural center of Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare counties. The measure won in farm-heavy Imperial County and the Sierra Nevada mountain counties of Mono and Alpine.
The geographic divide highlighted the challenges that Prop 37 had reaching and appealing to voters in more rural and conservative parts of the state, particularly in counties where agriculture is a huge part of the local economy.
"This is a story about money," Stacy Malkan, media director of the Proposition 37 campaign, said Wednesday. "Our loss had to do with being outspent. We didn't have the funds to compete on the air in the central part of the state."
Fairbanks said...
Supporters of Proposition 37 said Wednesday that efforts to require labels on genetically modified foods are now shifting to other states... (including Washington and Vermont.)
 
 
+6 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-08 12:02
Thank You...I cannot believe after I sent in information that this would be newsworthy. We know that Ca lost by small percent...I hope none were the idiot wineries as their wine can stay in California.

I do hope these companies are Audited for their Contributions.. they are not write offs IRS

Vt has it squarely on ...November 6, 2012 Bernie has come out to Lead against this GMO with 12 other States.
I say it is time to let them lose another 45 million if not billions because as we start the march, we will continue to spread out and so their money will also spread out...
Boycott all goods, unfortunately I had to buy some DOW insulation vs China I refuse to support Chinese/America n Companies I want Americans working.

I will continue to boycott foods companies, fertilizers, etc. Buy Organic, refuse to buy chemicals, we do not need them.

GM foods, Kashi, and others must go...
If you save in one place, you can afford good food, organic food. Stay Healthy buy American, Buy Organic....mean s animal and children food too.
 
 
+7 # jerryball 2012-11-08 12:47
A large voting segment was in Napa and Sonoma Counties where the largest wineries are. Not sure if grapes laced with pesticide or mystery meat are being produced, but sure would like to know.
 
 
+9 # Phlippinout 2012-11-08 12:16
Thank you San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Homboldt counties for a great effort. I used to live in San Francisco and loved the progressive voters who are willing to look forward.
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-08 12:10
This article is very biased. California came out, why not ask if machines were working on this Prop?
Seem to tell us the Machines were set agains OB why not this Prop?

I believe that the fight is not over, it has just begun. What one State tried to do for everyone is a Great Opportunity now for Vt and others to now spread the fight, weaken the opposition.

Monsanto is losing around the World, will continue to do so. We see Africa is joining us, South America, Australia as well as Europe, China, perhaps Japan. We are going to boycott the foods, that will hurt. We can boycott the fertizlers, plant food, dirt and so much more. Every label that says their names..we will look to alternatives.

Bayer poisoned Song Birds, Woodpecker this year with their Birdsee. So we will stop buying Bayer Products. Easy.

Want change, start in your own homes, throw away chemicals, go on line and learn how to use safe products, go to natural wash liquids, cleaners I love lemongrass and lavender. Lavender actually is nice around the animals and children...peac eful and calming. vinegar and baking soda best bug killers and wash softeners.
Mint can keep rodents away...
We do not have to buy Chemicals, we have been asking you not to since the Sixties.

Animal food...make your own. Grind chicken gizzards, liver, heart and meat ...serve in portions. same with all seafood, beef, pork..just keep fat out.
 
 
+7 # PaineRad 2012-11-08 12:57
What this demonstrates, I believe, is that the one state at a time approach to these ballot measures is not smart strategy. This allows the BIG MONEY crew to target just one state and unload both barrels in that one state.

We need to run the same measures in at least five states to force the opponents to prioritize of spend less in each state.

A couple cycles ago, the sugary drinks, obesity industry easily killed a Washington state tax. These go-it-alone measures are a lot easier to beat because it requires a lot less money to campaign effectively against them.

It also requires money on our part to effectively campaign against them. I would suggest that we ought to first make sure that we have $20 or so million in each state to fight for the measure. Otherwise, we are "bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight."

The only way these single state efforts work well is if we have so many measures on the same ballot that BIG MONEY has to fight on so many issues at the same time. But the weakness for this single state strategy for us is that there is a reason we call them BIG MONEY. And we also run the very real risk of turning off the voters with too many measures.
 
 
+5 # michelle 2012-11-08 14:22
Totally agree with PaineRad's observations on big money and ballot measures. We require a national rather state organization to achieve wins on ballot issues.

PaineRad reminds us to think of solutions rather than assign blame if we want to make any progress.
 
 
+5 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 23:42
@ michelle

In terms of National organizing, you have an effective ally in www.organicconsumers.org and affiliated organizations.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2012-11-09 07:22
@ Nominae

CORRECTION:

That website is actually:
www.organicconcumersassociation.org

Sorry for any inconvenience !
 
 
+3 # readerz 2012-11-09 09:43
I can't understand how the money couldn't be raised in California. You would think that at least a few celebrities would be against frankenfood, and there is a better chance of raising money in CA than elsewhere. Most of the rest of the country really scraped the bottom of our pockets for this "Citizen's United" horror of an election, and it is only going to continue unless and until the Supreme Court has different people in it who overturn "Citizens United." Our dollars are matched against millions. The best possible bills, together with the best possible ads, must be written, and then the best possible campaign, hitting up people with deep pockets. Bring on the European studies that show cancer and allergies due to these foods; show graphic pictures of tumors on TV. Nobody wants a tumor.
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 19:31
Celebrities are pussies.
Only a few dare to speak to controversial issues, Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, they get punished for it.
 
 
+5 # DreamWalker 2012-11-08 12:57
Who's to say the vote wasn't rigged? They've done it before, why not for an issue as well as a candidate? The tell is the narrow margin by which the win, in this case for Monsanto et al, came.
 
 
+7 # karlarove 2012-11-08 13:33
I live in California, and I must say I heard the radio advertisements on Green ?Radio 960, listen to my favorite progressive talk show hosts. The ads were interesting, and I was fascinated how convincing they were, especially so at the end with the very nice feminine voice saying who the ad was paid for by. When I heard Monsanto and DuPont, I was actually surprised, and I knew then the campaign would fail because the ads Monsanto ran were so convincingly confusing. Read the labels on some containers of chicken and beef broth, some contain cane sugar syrup.
 
 
+3 # NAVYVET 2012-11-08 15:06
I dunno about the California Green Party, but if Green Radio is affiliated with the Green Party I hope that the party out there is more trustworthy than in the eastern big city where they were brought to court back in 2004 and admitted taking money from the Republican Party "because they needed money." All soooooo innocent.
 
 
+4 # EternalTruth 2012-11-09 14:11
Green960 is aformerly progressive talk radio station, recently bought by clear channel and ruined with right wing nuts. I stopped listening. They were never affiliated with the Green Party.
 
 
+5 # Buddha 2012-11-08 13:51
It came down to money. I never saw a single TV commercial on it, never received a mailer, and the picture at the top is the only billboard I've seen, and it just a picture of one! Sorry, but you do need a VOICE to be able to explain to people why this is important. But in my opinion, given that this is a requirement already across the developed world, and places where many of us shop for healthier food like Whole Foods already by-and-large does this labeling, or by default doesn't sell GMO-containing products. The market will speak, even if the laws won't.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-11-09 09:46
Unfortunately, many plants spread their pollen with the franken-DNA already mixed in. The market may speak, but that will not be enough.
 
 
+5 # EternalTruth 2012-11-09 14:21
Actually, Whole Foods sells tons of unlabeled GMO products. They were conspicuous in their lack of support for Prop 37. When pressured, near the end, they officially endorsed it, but very quietly, and they contributed no money to the cause. They make too much money from those GMO companies and products to risk upsetting them.
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 20:58
Food Ho does sell GMO-containing products and they are often labeled "natural".
 
 
+11 # patmonk 2012-11-08 13:58
GMO FREE LEGISLATION PASSES IN WASHINGTON STATE.
From my old home-turf.
One small step. And we've only just begun.
http://www.causes.com/causes/79697-say-no-to-monsanto/actions/1701596
 
 
-8 # tref 2012-11-08 14:57
You want irony?
1) A big criticism by Progressives against Conservatives is that they are anti-science and
2) A lot of criticism of GMOs is based on the notion, totally unproven, that OF COURSE animal genes in a vegetable crop is Franckenstein bad but
3) There is no proof that this is so nor is it logical to assume it is so simply because it SOUNDS like it might be true.
4) Monsanto, et al, claimed to have science on their side, albeit, mostly "grey science."

So the conservative voters in California believed Monsanto's "grey science" instead of the wild scare claims by some Yes on 37 people.
 
 
+10 # tref 2012-11-08 14:58
This vote, like most votes, unfortunately, is the result of poor education. We do not teach our children to THINK. We feed them facts but no philosophy. We make them memorize formulas and arithmetic tables and never show them the relationship between numbers and logic. We delay the study of plane geometry, with its rigorous proofs, until high school, and then make it an elective, not to mention that it comes too late for many dropouts. One does not have to be super smart to be able to think well. Almost all children can be taught to think logically, to see logical fallacies, to recognize when they are being conned. But we don't teach them. Then along comes someone with a distortion of the truth or even an outright lie dressed up in fear-mongering and those who DO know how to think act surprised when the masses fall for the cons. It's just the chickens coming home to roost, folks.

If we want more intelligent voters, we MUST teach our children to think well. Again, it is NOT a matter of being blessed with great intelligence. It is a matter of your being taught how to use the brain power that you DO have.
 
 
+12 # vt143 2012-11-08 17:45
As I've said before on this topic: If you're proud of your product, you are happy to have its contents on the label. If you're ashamed, you try to hide it. What does $30-40,000,000 tell you. ASHAMED!
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2012-11-08 23:52
@ vt143

GREAT point ! As far back as 1996, the spokeswoman for Monsanto went on record as saying that if Monsanto were forced to label their food products as containing GMOs: "we might as well put a skull and crossbones on our labels". Hey, first accurate thing she said all day !
 
 
+11 # barryg 2012-11-08 23:48
Sorry for all those people who believe science supports GMO safety. Only science from the producers does. All independent studies show serious problems. I don't want to spend the time now to list them but it started back in 1990 with the first independent studies of GMO potatoes reporting serious problems. The head of the research, a very respected scientist who's last name is Putzai I think, was trashed. He lost his job and was seriously attacked by industry.

If you think science supports GMO's go ahead and eat them but I am a scientist and I sure do not want to. Real honest science says they are bad. Very bad. And they produce less food for more money than organic or chemical farming.
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2012-11-09 07:25
@ barryg

Thank gawd for input from a true scientist ! My only regret is that I have but one "thumbs up" to give your comment ! I would like to make it 10 to the tenth power !
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 19:26
Plus, animals won't eat them.

If animals won't eat GMO food I sure don't want to.
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2012-11-09 12:31
Californians vote to hide genetically engineered poisons in processed foods while the residents of Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington state, vote to destroy -- yes, destroy -- their mass transit system.

What do these electoral decisions have in common?

Both show us the real problem in the United States: the fact it is Moron Nation, the land of political idiots, moral imbeciles and smirking ignoramuses -- the Moronic Majority that would rule even if there had been no Citizens United decision.
 
 
+5 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-11-09 17:26
There is much confusion over the dangers of too much refinement and genetic engineering. There were a series of disasters, starting with penguin shells being thin after DDT was invented that was so safe that salesmen sprayed themselves with it. Then there was genetically injected corn with insecticide only for animal feed but crossbreed by the wind to all corn in the Northern Hemisphere. One discarded soda can in the Northern Hemisphere can threaten an entire honeybee hive, with bees imported from the Southern Hemisphere but no one considering frequently adding new bees from Australia to our national parks. The main reason black hole Large Hadron Collider research was deemed safe was Hawkins Radiation which is no longer considered to exist by many Physicians.

A huge disaster will happen or else a small disaster wake humankind up. Those spending huge sumes trying to isolate their personal lives from danger may accomplish a little but not if they eat a whole lot of rice sweetener and never touch any genetic engineering by mostly living on high priced stale food powders with corn only from South America will be no more safe then the rest of us.

Ideally all those firms who poured money into lobbying can be induced to spend an equal amount on a comprehensive safety conference.
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2012-11-10 00:48
@ RICHARDKANE

As a person who has to live on nothing but the purest organic foods, or suffer severe medical consequences, I am ever grateful for your extremely valuable and informative information.

From me, and (sadly) the millions like me, thank you so much !
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2013-02-04 17:03
Californians ARE easily intimidated. Los Angeles residents especially. You have a lot of actors, creative workers here. They want to work. And they put up with some of the most horrific slavery just to do it. I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about actors and set workers and so forth who do the show biz thing. It's a world where you DON'T speak out because to do so might mean you never work again. And so these wonderful spirited people become really compliant and accepting of tyranny. I worked on a big movie just once, and was amazed at how people were treated. They were well paid---but treated horribly.
I like my job where I'm not real well paid but I literally love my co-workers and look forward to seeing them each day.

And, after all that babbling, Jon Rappoport probably has made the best point so far regarding Prop 37. Here is his piece on it.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/did-peop-37-really-lose-or-was-it-vote-fraud/
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN