Mother’s Market promotes Prop. 37 GMO labeling

Aug. 21, 2012

By John Seiler

When shopping yesterday at the Huntington Beach health-food store Mother’s Market, which I’ve patronized for 25 years, they promoted this flyer from the store:

“LET’S MAKE HISTORY!” it says, by passing Proposition 37, the initiative that would mandate the labeling of food that’s “GMO” — genetically modified organism. We’ll be doing some analysis of Prop. 37 here on CalWatchDog.com.

For now, I’m amused to see that, at the bottom of the flyer, it reads, “Proposition 37 simply requires labeling of genetically engineered foods…”

Simply? The full text of the initiative, from the Yes on 37 site, runs to eight pages if you print it out. My late friend Frank Yegge used to say, “If a law is longer than one page, it’s too long.”

Prop. 37 contains such language as:

“111910.  (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808), or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5. Any proceeding under this section shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that the person shall not be required to allege facts necessary to show, or tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show, irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or special individual injury or damages.

“(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award to that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.

“(c) This section shall not be construed to limit or alter the powers of the department and its authorized agents to bring an action to enforce this chapter pursuant to Section 111900 or any other provision of law.”

Sounds like another Lawyers’ Full-Employment Act.

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. Tom Tanton
    Tom Tanton 21 August, 2012, 16:13

    So one of my favorite summer fruits–the Plu-ot (plum x apricot) has to be labeled since it contains the DNA from two ‘different plants’? And the specialty beef of Black Angus x Limousine?

    Reply this comment
  2. Ben Boychuk
    Ben Boychuk 21 August, 2012, 16:14

    Great. It’s going to be like Prop. 65 on steroids.

    Reply this comment
  3. us citizen
    us citizen 21 August, 2012, 17:31

    I think GMO food should be labeled. Gawd only knows what sort of diseases in the future this chemically induced food is going to produce.

    “The GMO link to strange disease
    As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon’s disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.

    Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html#ixzz24ELoOHkZ

    Reply this comment
  4. Gerald Caskey
    Gerald Caskey 21 August, 2012, 19:49

    The key word “may be” no proof! just California being California.

    Reply this comment
  5. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 21 August, 2012, 23:01

    What about blended wines from foreign countries? How does a retailer know what is in the bottle…..only an attorney does! Can you afford to defend against “exploratory ” lawsuits?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Tags assigned to this article:
GMOJohn SeilerMother's MarketProposition 37

Related Articles

California’s new undocumented jurors

April 26, 2013 By Katy Grimes The dead Boston Bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, would have been eligible to serve on a

CalWatchdog Morning Read – September 26

Inequality in San Francisco breeds political unease FPPC to investigate contributions made to Gov. Brown, but not Brown himself Union

Rail authority offers no ‘remedies’ for bullet-train plan’s legal flaws

On Nov. 8, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny will hold a hearing at which “remedies” to the shortcomings in