Vote NO on CA Prop 37: Mandatory GMO Food Labeling

[tongodeon]

California Prop 37 is on the ballot for this November. I'm concerned that I'm writing this too late - some of you may have already filled out your early voter / absentee ballots. For the rest of you I think this is bad legislation, and that you should vote no. This is why.

18 years of study : zero cause for concernThe first GMO food product was

Comments

[mister_borogove]

Good writeup. My only real riposte would boil down to "fuck a bunch of Monsanto" but I suppose [REDACTED] is a more direct approach to that problem.

However, I contest this: If my accountant wants to use a Microsoft computer to do my taxes, I'm pretty sure he knows his reasons better than I do.

I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what is true.

[tongodeon]

I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what is true.

Seriously? Even within my area of expertise, I have trouble figuring out whether a motion graphics house or boutique VFX studio would be best-advised to go with Windows, Linux, or OSX for their rendering/compositing pipeline. And that's a field I actually know. What I don't know is their client base, their areas of expertise, their data flow, library compatibility issues, and whatever deals they might have with hardware or software suppliers.

I'm not going to walk into my accountant's office and start lecturing him on why he needs to run Linux. I might mention that it's an option and give him a boot disk to try out, but asking for mandatory identification so that I can boycott if he refuses to bend to my personal preferences seems unreasonable.

[usernameguy]

LOL, you're not even IN California, dude. Do you still get a ballot? (Do you pay taxes in California?)

Besides, you missed my single favorite reason to vote no on CA Prop 37: it's a CA Prop! The CA proposition system has pushed our state to the brink of bankruptcy. It's a disaster. Vote no on props!

[tongodeon]

My foreign voter ballot has to be issued by a sate, and that state is California. Partly because it's my last state of residence, and partly because my parents still live there.

I still care, even if I'm not a resident anymore, the way I care about cigarette companies using bad science to deny smoking risks in Asia. GMO is good stuff, and I hate seeing special interests using crap science to encourage people to make bad choices.

[loic]

I don't get a say in this (taxation without representation, etc), but I'm in favour of prop 37.

I'm not particularly worried about GMO foods, but the geneticists I've known were. They probably know more about it than me. That aside I actually like the idea of forcing food producers to pay attention to their supply chain. Yes it's hard, but if they have to pay attention they're more likely to pick up on nasty stuff like downer cows and salmonella in my spinach - or at least when shit like that turns up be able to track it down quickly and have a more finessed response than, for example nobody in the country eating spinach for two months.

The risk is that people start treating "GMO free" the way they treat "organic" or "fat free". What we really actually need is restrictions on the use of health claims on unhealthy products. Like you can't put "fat free" on your high salt products, etc.

[tongodeon]

I'm not particularly worried about GMO foods, but the geneticists I've known were.

What specifically were they worried about? And when were they worried? I'm unaware of any plausible cause for worry that hasn't been adequately explored. For what it's worth my geneticist friends are unconcerned. A couple years ago I tried to write a "why you shouldn't be concerned" post, but it's a big sprawling subject with lots of interesting detail and it kind of collapsed under its own weight.

Yes it's hard, but if they have to pay attention they're more likely to pick up on nasty stuff like downer cows and salmonella in my spinach - or at least when shit like that turns up be able to track it down quickly and have a more finessed response than, for example nobody in the country eating spinach for two months.I have no problem with forcing supply chains to pay attention to factors that they should pay attention to, because they are harmful or dangerous or risky. Downer cows and salmonella spinach are two good examples. But GMO isn't one of those

[arborvitae]

I'm 1/2 way done with my MS and I'm getting my minor in genomics. I don't know ALL of the geneticists in the world, but none of the people I know who are familiar with genetics (including myself) are worried about GMO foods.

[matrygg]

The only issue I have with this is that Monsanto is patenting genomes for their "Roundup ready" crops. Due to crops being, well, crops, that gene is popping up in commodity soybeans that farmers buy without Monsanto's technology fee. When that happens, Monsanto sues the farmer for patent infringement. That said, that's a legal issue regarding whether or not genetic sequences should be patentable, rather than a fundamental question of whether or not GMO food is inherently bad.

[tongodeon]

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser is the landmark case that you seem to be referring to, and it's more complicated than that:

Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997. ... At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola

[tongodeon]

I'm leaning toward voting YES on Prop. 37 anyway for purely *political* reasons.
...
A mandatory label would facilitate consumer expression of *political* choice about the food system at point of sale in the grocery store.

Yeah, but what kind of political choice would that be? GMO as a technology is a net win. It's a win for the environment, it's a win for small farmers and developing nations, it's a win for nutrition and resource efficiency. If your politics run counter to those interests, I don't want to facilitate your political choices any more than I want to help you hamper other forms of progress.

That's how I understand the role of GMO in farming anyway, because that's what the best quality evidence tells me. If you've got other evidence that's helped you form different political opinions I'd love to know what those are.

[anonymous]

| If your politics run counter to those interests, I don't want to facilitate your political choices...That. Right there. That is the sharp edge of the political question

[tongodeon]

I think Pollan's argument for YES on 37 is that GMO technology is a useful shibboleth for distinguishing between the two major factions squaring off over food system policy in the public sphere.

So are computers to furniture makers. IKEA uses a lot more of them than a Mennonite craftsman in his shed. But I'm not going to mandate that every piece of furniture have mandatory "made with computers" labeled on the side, even if I favor high-quality furniture, because I also support the efficiency, decreased waste, and precision that a good CNC mill can produce.

As a general principle, don't you think it's good for everyone to let consumers in a free market make choices about what to buy based on their political alignment and views?

I do, and I thought I addressed that point. If your candy bar doesn't say "kosher", it's probably not kosher. If it doesn't say "vegan", it's probably not vegan. And if it doesn't say "no GMO", it's probably got some GMO corn syrup in it.

Mandatory warning labels only appear on things that have demonstrable