California Propositions 2012

[zoobernut]

Why didn't 37 pass? Shouldn't that have been a no-brainer? Don't people want to know what they are eating? Does anyone know if it was written poorly or had some extra crap in it that was bad? What were the arguments against it?

[quannum]

Why didn't 37 pass? Shouldn't that have been a no-brainer? Don't people want to know what they are eating? Does anyone know if it was written poorly or had some extra crap in it that was bad? What were the arguments against it?

monsanto told people to vote no, they did.

[zoobernut]

monsanto told people to vote no, they did.

Fuck Monsanto and fuck people who listened to them. What exactly was Monsanto saying in their adds against 37 that would persuade people?

[quannum]

I think most people fell for the organic loophole argument or the vague "its going to cost you" message.

more no ads, http://www.youtube.com/user/NoProp37

[hey]

Do people really care if their food is engineered?

[zoobernut]

That add makes me really sad. Sad for the fact that people bought into it, sad for the fact that people don't care more about knowing what they eat. And sad for the fact that the FDA doesn't already require GMO food to be labeled that way by default already.

Edit: I guess not Hey but I know I do and my family does. I am not saying I automatically avoid something because it is labeled as GMO but I think people have a right to know.

[quannum]

Do people really care if their food is engineered?

libertarians are against information?

That add makes me really sad. Sad for the fact that people bought into it, sad for the fact that people don't care more about knowing what they eat. And sad for the fact that the FDA doesn't already require GMO food to be labeled that way by default already.

before the ads started, it was roughly 60% yes on 37 and 30% no on 37. spending money on advertising works.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/poll_copy_0.jpg

[Correction]

monsanto told people to vote no, they did.

So did scientists everywhere, not just ones on the Monsanto payroll.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...entists-cheer/
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/...ia_proposition
http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._backfire.html
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1210

[quannum]

those links focus on the scare tactic used by the yes on 37 campaign and the safety of gmos, which is moronic in the first place. yes gmo doesn't mean bad, great we agree there, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't label the stuff. the decision should be left to the consumer, not the food industry.

i don't particularly care how much sodium is in a bottle of snapple, it does not follow that we therefore shouldn't put the info on the label.

[Correction]

The concern expressed is at a rush to (poorly) apply scientific consensus to legislation. A blanket label does nothing to increase the amount of useful information consumers receive about their food. When's the last time you checked your tuna to see if it was 'dolphin safe?'

[hey]

i don't particularly care how much sodium is in a bottle of snapple, it does not follow that we therefore shouldn't put the info on the label.

Except that the amount of sodium in a bottle of snapple is actually useful information, even if most people don't care about it. If you want to label the in a meaningful way that isn't just designed to scare people away, then go for it, but that's not what prop 37 was.

[zoobernut]

The concern expressed is at a rush to (poorly) apply scientific consensus to legislation. A blanket label does nothing to increase the amount of useful information consumers receive about their food. When's the last time you checked your tuna to see if it was 'dolphin safe?'

A lot of people read food labels to know what they are eating. This isn't about whether or not the information is going to be used, everyone has a right to know what is in their food if they choose to read the label. Foods already have to list all their ingredients why is this any different?

[Kohan]

where in the hell did I say people on food stamps are unemployed?

Nowhere. However, you did state:

not limited to the only part of reform but maybe ideas like incentives to encourage people and families to get off programs

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.

As both hey and Demo agreed:

It's not a huge problem - it really isn't. But it could always be reformed. Just don't fuck with people that actually need it because a small amount of people abuse it.

Meanwhile, your similarly misinformed cheerleader has deserted you, and you've failed to rise to the challenge of debunking the information that's been presented against your case.

Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.

[Ksandra]

The concern expressed is at a rush to (poorly) apply scientific consensus to legislation. A blanket label does nothing to increase the amount of useful information consumers receive about their food. When's the last time you checked your tuna to see if it was 'dolphin safe?'

^ honestly, I felt 37 was a waste of time. If they came out with enough evidence that GMO food is causing all kinds of health issues and that certain people should avoid it, then I would change my tune. Honestly, I assume anything not in the organic food section is GMO in some way.

sodium was definitely a bad example because a lot of people need to regulate their intake of sodium for health reasons.

[Correction]

A lot of people read food labels to know what they are eating. This isn't about whether or not the information is going to be used, everyone has a right to know what is in their food if they choose to read the label. Foods already have to list all their ingredients why is this any different?

The primary problem I had with 37 is that it addresses zero of the real concerns over GMO food (see the eisen blog link) and turns the entire issue into 'let's punish these evil corporations.'

Except that Monsanto would continue to see growth because meat/dairy was exempt from the labeling. And while pro-37 backers would have crowed their victory, the real and active concerns over GMO as an unsustainable agricultural monopoly go unaddressed while tons of safe agricultural products get shipped elsewhere for human consumption.

It was a pretty dumb law.

[zoobernut]

^ honestly, I felt 37 was a waste of time. If they came out with enough evidence that GMO food is causing all kinds of health issues and that certain people should avoid it, then I would change my tune. Honestly, I assume anything not in the organic food section is GMO in some way.

sodium was definitely a bad example because a lot of people need to regulate their intake of sodium for health reasons.

The point of all food labeling is that people have a right to choose what they eat, they have a right to know what is being put into their food. What are food companies so afraid of to label GMO foods? Even if it doesn't have a known or constant negative effect for everyone some people don't want to eat it for whatever personal reason.

Edit: I could see that correction I haven't read the actual wording of 37 (I don't live in California) But I do think that any food additive or any ingredient that is more than what it was when it was natural should be labeled so people can make an informed decision. Why people choose to eat or not eat GMO's is irrelevant. GMO's and other food ingredients don't need to be bad for people in order to need to be labeled. People have a right to know what is in the food they are eating if they choose to know.

[Xno Kappa]

[Correction]

The point of all food labeling is that people have a right to choose what they eat, they have a right to know what is being put into their food. What are food companies so afraid of to label GMO foods? Even if it doesn't have a known or constant negative effect for everyone some people don't want to eat it for whatever personal reason.

Keep in mind how unhelpful the labels would have been. 'Contains GMOs' leaves absolutely everything up to the imagination of the consumer and doesn't put them better off than they are right now. Yes, consumers have the right to know, but I wish they'd demand to know relevant facts without enshrining some dumb 'two legs good four legs bad' assumption into the law of my state. 37 was a pretty bad answer to a problem its supporters didn't say a single word about.

[hey]

What are food companies so afraid of to label GMO foods?

Because idiots don't understand what it means, and will avoid it, thinking it's bad.

[zoobernut]

Keep in mind how unhelpful the labels would have been. 'Contains GMOs' leaves absolutely everything up to the imagination of the consumer and doesn't put them better off than they are right now. Yes, consumers have the right to know, but I wish they'd demand to know relevant facts without enshrining some dumb 'two legs good four legs bad' assumption into the law of my state. 37 was a pretty bad answer to a problem its supporters didn't say a single word about.

Seems like each individual ingredient would have to be labeled as GMO if it was a GMO then they should have the information on how it was modified on a website so you could go look up the information if you chose to. For example if you are buying Corn Chips and the corn is a GMO then only the corn is labeled as GMO then you could look up more information else where telling you what strain of corn they used in your chips. Hopefully someone re-writes the proposition to not suck and it gets passed at some point.