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

[flwyd]

The big anti-GMO concern I hear is unwanted cross-pollination. Neighboring GMO makes it hard for those who want to grow non-GMO. You don't seem to cover this argument and I'm curious what your insight is.

(Not that mandatory labeling would solve this problem.)

[rwx]

> BT corn is engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, a natural protein produced by bacteria

inaccurate. BT is the name of the bacteria, not the name of the protein (proteins in current strains) that is produced that are the endotoxins secreted. BT is probably more salable as a trade name than Cry/Cyt, though.

[rwx]

The text of the proposed law ( http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws-v2.pdf#nameddest=prop37 ) is fairly clear about what sort of things they mean by "genetically engineered

[tongodeon]

"Genetically modified" is the criteria that falls apart when you look at it. The law requires a clearly defined subset of genetic modifications to carry a mandatory warning, but I can't find much rationale for why that criteria deserves a warning. For example you're allowed to graft plum stems onto apricot trees without a mandatory warning, but if you put a plum organelle into an apricot cell that requires a warning. You can irradiate an apricot seed until it mutates randomly and then sell its mutants as food without warnings, but if you sequence a deliberate mutation you can't sell that without a warning.

It's like a "diesel vehicle labeling" law that only applies to vehicles that use metric fasteners. It's a crystal clear criteria, but it excludes a bunch of engines that are also diesel engines and there doesn't seem to be much reason for the warning in the first place.

[rwx]

plum family should have been "prunus family"

[arborvitae]

Thanks for posting this! I was already leaning towards voting no, but this is a great summary and makes me feel more confident about my decision to vote against!