Here’s an example of Monsanto’s disregard for people’s health from Wikipedia:
As of 2012, Monsanto is associated with 11 “active” Superfund sites and 20 “archived” sites in the US, in the EPA’s Superfund database.[80] Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.

Superfund is a US federal government program designed to fund the cleanup of toxic waste sites identified by the EPA as an area contaminated with hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

The Monsanto company has created the most superfund sites in the US.
Should we really be eating food that was created by Monsanto?? Do we really want to eat food that was created by Monsanto??

And to all of you “No on 37ers”, don’t think for a minute that you’re getting anywhere by insulting people and saying how stupid we are for voting yes on 37.

It’s so nice to see the rabid anti-business sentiment from the pro Prop. 37 crowd. So the “precautionary principle” is now the salient ethos for you luddite reactionaries? Have you ever in your life contemplated the social cost of regulatory compliance while daydreaming in your taxfeeder cubicles? Does it ever occur to you that regulatory and litigation excess have negative economic consequences like higher unemployment, lower employee compensation and more expensive products? Are you at all familiar with the concept of cost vs. benefit analysis? Didn’t think so.

If scary labeling is really necessary then bring it on. Lets label cell phones and microwaves as cancer causing agents because there is still no definitive proof that Unidentified Radiolytic By-products are harmless (remember the precautionary principle now). Lets label organic foods as health threats too since who knows what levels of lead, cadmium or mercury they contain, not to mention the presence of potentially carcinogenic natural pesticides and toxins (yes kids, mommy nature produces toxic chemicals too).

Do you see where this leads? There is no end to the scare mongering that can happen when businesses are burdened with having to prove a negative or submit to labeling for unproven risks. You fans of hyper-regulation of business don’t seem too worried about THE FLUORIDE GOVERNMENT PUTS IN YOUR WATER, even though fluoride is an industrial waste product of aluminum smelting and is easily obtainable in a variety of cheap and common oral hygiene products.

“Trying to reframe the discussion about whether or not consumers have the right to know what is in their food into being about lawsuits, increased costs & exceptions is a cheap and obvious PR ploy to divert discussion of the real issue: is the public entitled to informed consent about their food?”

Economic cost resulting from regulation is a legitimate issue that regulatory enthusiasts hate to discuss because it requires rational analysis. Maybe Crazyfornia’s scandalously high unemployment rate and cost of living are in part due to this. It’s easy to claim health risks but I noticed none of the pro Proposition 37 advocates here have given an ounce of scientific proof for these claims, just classic scare mongering about potential harm. Regarding the dubious claim that consumers have a right to know what is in their food, most consumers are so scientifically illiterate that they have no capacity or inclination to understand the labeling anyway. Imagine the kind of havoc one could produce among impressionable shoppers by requiring a food label that stated “CAUTION: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!”

“People don’t need an advanced degree to understand GMO’s: we all memorized the definition of a species & a species barrier in high school biology.”

Wrong again. Most people either didn’t take high school biology or have forgotten whatever smidgen of information they learned there. Go ask any random group of a thousand people who Gregor Mendel is or ask them to define the Krebs Cycle or the meaning of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Still think the average Americano knows squat about Biology? Most people couldn’t tell you the difference between Mitosis and MySpace.

But don’t worry business haters, Prop. 37 will no doubt pass and we will be inundated with warnings about dreaded GMO’s in our food. Don’t be surprised if people end up ignoring the warnings though. After all, who pays any attention to the ubiquitous Prop. 65 warning labels. I recently assembled a piece of furniture made in China that was plastered with multiple Prop. 65 warnings. Who knew you could get cancer from a wood chair? Just remember the cautionary tale of the boy who cried wolf, ’cause there is only so much warning people can handle before they tune it out.

Nice sentiment, but that is not the objective of the law. The purpose of this law is to produce lawsuits, not information. This was also the purpose of the law that requires every business in the state to post a sign stating that cancer-causing substances may be present. What information do you think you have obtained from a sign that is on literally every place of business in the state?

It will be the same with Prop. 37. Within a few years, every piece of food sold in the state will contain the label ‘May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.’ And what useful information do you think you will have gained?

The biggest global players in the agrochemical, biotech & food sectors have amassed a warchest of +$44 million to defeat Prop 37 and they are not doing this to protect consumers from lawsuits and greedy lawyers. These companies hold the patents on GMO seeds & associated pesticides, and right now, with no labels, they can sell GMO foods for the same price as conventional foods in the USA, while in countries that require labeling, GMO’s sell for less than conventional foods. There is so little consumer demand in Europe that GMO’s are basically just used for animal feed. It is only possible to substitute ever increasing percentages of lower cost and risker transgenic foods into the USA diet while GMO foods are invisible due to a lack of labeling. No labeling creates more profit for GMO producers and processors- it is an artificial price support for a commodity that has absolutely no consumer demand or benefits. There would only be cause for lawsuits if companies try to cheat consumers by false labeling or substitution, which they can now do legally.

As for lawyers, Monsanto has an litigation history a mile long, that includes trying to sue companies for labeling products as not containing their GMO growth hormone, suing small farmers for their life savings because Monsanto’s patented seeds blew into their fields, and denying harming the health of US veterans from exposure to Agent Orange. Their other high science products included DDT, which is now a toxic body burden to lifeforms worldwide and is still present in mother’s breast milk decades after being banned in the USA. Their DDT also almost caused the extinction of the American eagle. The ocean off Palos Verdes, CA is now a SuperFund site and home to the largest DDT deposit in the world, and as a result people are advised- by the government- not to eat the fish caught in that area. To say that Monsanto has made inaccurate safety claims in the past would be an understatement.

Personally, I wouldn’t be inclined to believe anything the agrochemical industry says about any of it’s products: one would have to be feeble to continuing trusting companies that have caused so much human and environmental health damage in the past. Our food supply is too important to turn over to corporations wanting to patent life and create monopolies. Our food security is best served by diversity of food crops and ownership.

The public has been asking for GMO labeling since these were introduced in the 1990’s and has been ignored. The 61 other countries that currently require labeling cited scientific findings for requiring labeling and do have credible scientists. Europe wanted to ban the importation of GMO’s entirely, but was threatened by the USA with a lawsuit as a restraint of trade under WTO rules, so labeling in Europe was only a fallback position.

People don’t need an advanced degree to understand GMO’s: we all memorized the definition of a species & a species barrier in high school biology. Most people aren’t nearly naive enough to trust mega corporations trying to create food monopolies and financially compromised politicans, scientists and government agencies to decide what they should eat. If you want to eat three meals a day doused in Round-up for your entire, life go for it, but don’t deny others the choice. Consumers can’t vote with there pockets for or against GMO foods while they are unlabeled- because they are invisible. I will save money because I will no longer be forced to buy costly organics to avoid transgenic foods. If you like, want and trust GMO foods, the prices will most likely go down with labeling, as they have in parts of the world where labels are required.

“GMO’s are a new form of slavery.”
Vatican Cardinal Peter Turkson

A Yes vote on 37 is a vote for transparency, accountability and informed consent in our food supply.

That Edward Abbey quote is pure gold.