On California Proposition 37
The Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Labeling initiative
- Labeling food ingredients as being GMO or not does not make the food any safer.
- There is no validated evidence I am aware of that any GMO food that is allowed to be used in food is unsafe, or has ever been shown to be unsafe.
- There is nothing inherent to being GMO food that makes them unsafe.
- Having the labeling for GMO or non-GMO gives a false sense of improved safety. Given the choice, I would feed my family cereal made from GMO corn produced in the United States before I would feed them anything made from foodstuff imported from China.
- All of the reasons that I hear from the proponents of the measure are fallacious, and intended to scare, but have no real science behind them.
- Most (but not all) of the reasons that I hear from the opponents of the measure are valid.
- I feel Monsanto uses their GMO patents in an unfair, and harmful way.
- I actually do support the use of the precautionary principle as a tool for making better health and environmental decisions, and think that there is a significant financial incentive to suppress information and studies. Looking only at past behaviors of large agribusiness behavior, and Monsanto in particular when it's a choice between profit and safety, safety may not always carry the day.
- GMO crops can, but not necessarily, increase the use of both pesticides and herbicides in the production of food.
- These pesticides and herbicides, coincidentally are not only very profitable, but they are manufactured, tested and sold by the same corporations that are producing and selling the GMO products that encourage their use. That is like adding extra salt to popcorn, so that you can increase your beer sales.