Comments on: California’s Prop. 37 is not stricter food regulation

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 05:11:27 +0000

I buy the argument that a tolerance threshold should be allowed — i.e. 1-5% GM contamination. Although it takes less than that level of contamination for Monsanto to sue you over the illegal seed usage. I see no issue giving exemptions to organics as they have many criteria they must meet to be certified organic. Still it really shouldn’t bother them one way or another if they are exempt or not – they should be GM free. I hope the repackage prop 37 with some of the above recommendations – Information is always good…

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:20:46 +0000

I just read the whole text of prop 37 and NO WHERE is it written that there will be a zero percent tolerance for unintentional contamination. In fact, the text says no sampling shall be take place unless it is consistent with the “principles recommended by by internationally recognized sources such as the International StandArds organization and the the Grain and feed Trade Association.” Where exactly did you come up with that zero tolerance information?? Also, any organic company has to already, by law, not use GMO methods. Here’s a question: why have the makers of Roundup herbicide and other big corporate giants like Kellog and Nestle put TENS of millions of dollars into the “no on 37” campaign. Hummmmmm.

By: Mark Talmont

Mark Talmont — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:40:38 +0000

Interesting point of view, I was leaning towards “Yes” because I feel this GMO stuff has been imposed without adequate review in the first place–the initial federal ruling that GMO are presumed safe came from a committee chaired by Dan Quayle relying on Monsanto for advice. Obama appointed Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor as the key advisor on such matters to the FDA.

Perusing the stories about who is funding the “No” campaign raises more questions, the “Pro” side is able to cite data showing how much is coming from the biggest “organic” marketers, which raises the question why would they be against it if they are situated to benefit from mandatory labelling?

By: JLSeagull

JLSeagull — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:18:24 +0000

How many people pay attention to the Prop 65 warning about cancerous chemicals on the property that businesses are required to display. Prop 37 was written by lawyers for lawyers.

By: Annika Speckhart

Annika Speckhart — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:16:05 +0000

this is interesting

By: Anna Severin

Anna Severin — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:15:19 +0000

thanks for watching!

By: Richard Rider

Richard Rider — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:46:11 +0000

Posted on my new blog http://www.riderrants.blogspot.com/ and Facebook. MANY thanks!

By: Ted "Eddy Baby" Steele, Associate Prof.

Ted "Eddy Baby" Steele, Associate Prof. — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:14:01 +0000

It’s all about FREEDOM !! Our sacred job creator masters ought to be free to put whatever they deem proper in our foods and we must and should eat same!

LIBERTY FOR PATRIOTS!!!!!!!

By: eck

eck — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:53:48 +0000

I think we have MORE than adequate food labeling. (by the way, is there some study as to whether or not more of this “fine print” stuff, just reduces the number of folks who even read it?) But, OK, if we’re going to this, we’ve got to require organic stuff carry the label “grown in shit, without those chemicals that protect you from disease”. No?

By: That Woman

That Woman — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:58:39 +0000

The purpose of the Proposition is to kill businesses that use, make, produce, or sell agricultural products enhanced by that method. It is nothing more than more legislation to tarnish technological progress under the idiotic guise of a health threat. California seeks to send itself back to the Stone Age.