California Propositions 2012

[Correction]

Hopefully someone re-writes the proposition to not suck and it gets passed at some point.

Honestly I don't think the problem should be attacked this way. I'd rather Cali, or any other state, set up some standards for food types that get special 'sustainable' labels like 'not produced by companies that engage in anti-competitive gene copyright bullying' or 'produced with regard to its carbon footprint' so that consumers can make the correct kind of informed choices that align better with genuine concerns over GMO. The pro-37 crowd was lousy with self-interested snake oil salesmen trying to peddle more organic crops and I'd rather not gift them anything by slapping 'LOOK OUT IT'S GMO!' labels on products that compete with theirs.

[zoobernut]

Honestly I don't think the problem should be attacked this way. I'd rather Cali, or any other state, set up some standards for food types that get special 'sustainable' labels like 'not produced by companies that engage in anti-competitive gene copyright bullying' or 'produced with regard to its carbon footprint' so that consumers can make the correct kind of informed choices that align better with genuine concerns over GMO. The pro-37 crowd was lousy with self-interested snake oil salesmen trying to peddle more organic crops and I'd rather not gift them anything by slapping 'LOOK OUT IT'S GMO!' labels on products that compete with theirs.

I am not saying I don't agree with this but I also think that there is more to the issue than the ethics of how the company conducts itself with respect to GMO's some people just don't want to eat them. Regardless of if they are harmful or not. In that respect what you are saying here would not work for those people. How do you propose to allow people who don't want to eat GMO's be able to avoid them?

[Tweek]

And that is what I responded to. These systems already exist, are in place, and demand mandatory participation. This applies not only to food stamps, but the other services you mentioned, such as unemployment.

So you're telling me that people are given such high incentives the cases in which people remain collecting unemployment and life long disability over getting a new job that is available to them but would net them less a month is few and far between? If you really think that you're misguided there are plenty of people who collected unemployment rather than accepting new job offers because they made more by being unemployed, if they accepted the job they would get cut off right away. I'm not going to bother looking up any sources for you since you'll just discredit them, you can look them up yourselves. There is a program in place for life long disability as kind of a trial going back to work period that lasts for 6 months. during that time the person still collects disability and after the period is up they have a choice to make go back to work or stop working and continue receiving disability. The program has holes in it and could benefit by being reformed. Be my guest in showing us a similar program for unemployment though perhaps you have some first hand experienced when you were unemployed you could share?

As both hey and Demo agreed:

actually hey said a lot of people but most don't and demos said a small amount but close enough right?

Can we just say that a lot of people abuse welfare, but most do not, and call it a day?

a small amount of people abuse it.

[hey]

By a lot, i meant a relatively small, but still significant amount.

So yeah, close enough.

[Tweek]

By a lot, i meant a relatively small, but still significant amount.

So yeah, close enough.

Yeah and I fully agree.

[Correction]

How do you propose to allow people who don't want to eat GMO's be able to avoid them?

Isn't there already a way to live like this without needing a permanent law on the books? It's not like CSAs and natural foods are particularly rare.
Or are you more asking if we can provide a way for people to eat Fritos and drink Coke without consuming GMOs?

[zoobernut]

No I am saying people should be able to know definitively if Frito's and Coke have GMO's in them not have to avoid them on an assumption that they do.

[Ksandra]

It's called the organic food section at the grocery store.

[zoobernut]

It's called the organic food section at the grocery store.

As Organic becomes more profitable and bigger companies start to release organic products there is no guarantee that they do not contain GMO's and often times these products are released under subsidiary names so it might be hard to tell if it comes from a company known for using GMO's. As far as I know something can be a GMO and considered organic under current rules. If I am wrong on that point then you are right.

[Correction]

No I am saying people should be able to know definitively if Frito's and Coke have GMO's in them not have to avoid them on an assumption that they do.

I think it's important that everyone realize they've already consumed a fair bit of GMO food if they're of any age in an industrialized nation. I think it's enough to create a class of food that can refer to itself as 'GMO-free' to address the fears of these people going forward because I'm positive most people don't give a fuck if Pringles and Ding Dongs contain corn syrup produced by GMO crops. I don't believe in changing the laws because some phantom fear of bears that aren't really there.

[Melena]

As Organic becomes more profitable and bigger companies start to release organic products there is no guarantee that they do not contain GMO's and often times these products are released under subsidiary names so it might be hard to tell if it comes from a company known for using GMO's. As far as I know something can be a GMO and considered organic under current rules. If I am wrong on that point then you are right.

Zoob, just out of curiosity, would you say then that meat that came from cattle that was fed with grains that contained GMO require to be labeled?

[quannum]

monsanto is rather effective in its brainwashing as you can see.

[zoobernut]

Zoob, just out of curiosity, would you say then that meat that came from cattle that was fed with grains that contained GMO require to be labeled?

I am not really sure. I do know meat produced where animals are fed hormones or other chemicals are labeled as such. I guess if the end meat product is different in any way because they were fed GMO's then people would probably want to know they were fed GMO's if not then maybe not. It is once removed by that point. Similar to how some ingredients can be put under "artificial flavors" or "natural flavors" label.

Correction, who cares if someone has already eaten a fair amount of GMO's? That has no bearing on what I am saying.

monsanto is rather effective in its brainwashing as you can see.

Does everyone genuinely think GMO's are lowering food prices? Don't you think they are using GMO's to simply increase their profits? I feel like the argument that GMO's are reducing food costs is like arguing that increasing drilling for oil in the US and building the keystone pipleline is going to drastically reduce the price of gas for the general public.

[Demosthenes11]

zoober are you me? I've been saying the exact things you have for a while now when the subject comes up.

In the end, it never hurts to label food and give consumers more information. There is labeling for kosher items, something that has no scientific basis and gives no information to people other than those that care.

[Demosthenes11]

This conversation typically boils down to "ew only hippies care - i fucking hate hippies. no on 37"

[zoobernut]

zoober are you me? I've been saying the exact things you have for a while now when the subject comes up.

In the end, it never hurts to label food and give consumers more information. There is labeling for kosher items, something that has no scientific basis and gives no information to people other than those that care.

This is a great example. Thank you.

[Melena]

I am not really sure. I do know meat produced where animals are fed hormones or other chemicals are labeled as such. I guess if the end meat product is different in any way because they were fed GMO's then people would probably want to know they were fed GMO's if not then maybe not. It is once removed by that point. Similar to how some ingredients can be put under "artificial flavors" or "natural flavors" label.

Correction, who cares if someone has already eaten a fair amount of GMO's? That has no bearing on what I am saying.



Does everyone genuinely think GMO's are lowering food prices? Don't you think they are using GMO's to simply increase their profits? I feel like the argument that GMO's are reducing food costs is like arguing that increasing drilling for oil in the US and building the keystone pipleline is going to drastically reduce the price of gas for the general public.

Only reason I asked is that was one of the more contentious exemptions being listed. Alcohol was also exempted since it's federally regulated already. I voted no, but that was more of if your going to do it, fucking do it on everything and do it nationwide, not just one state.

[Ksandra]

As Organic becomes more profitable and bigger companies start to release organic products there is no guarantee that they do not contain GMO's and often times these products are released under subsidiary names so it might be hard to tell if it comes from a company known for using GMO's. As far as I know something can be a GMO and considered organic under current rules. If I am wrong on that point then you are right.

I would be way more ok with them saying that food cannot be labelled as being organic if it has GMO properties.

There is labeling for kosher items, something that has no scientific basis and gives no information to people other than those that care.

Honest question, is that required by law or do companies just do it because they know there is a market for it?

[Correction]

Honest question, is that required by law or do companies just do it because they know there is a market for it?

The laws protecting the integrity of kosher labeling protect against fraudulent labeling. However, kosher label laws do not completely flip the status quo of food distribution in the states that enforce it. Prop 37's impact was far broader than any kosher labeling law could ever dream to achieve.

[Ksandra]

The laws protecting the integrity of kosher labeling protect against fraudulent labeling. However, kosher label laws do not completely flip the status quo of food distribution in the states that enforce it. Prop 37's impact was far broader than any kosher labeling law could ever dream to achieve.

good to know. That kinda goes along with what I am saying too, that a better law would be that something can't be labelled organic if it is GMO.