Consumers have the right to know what they're eating, just like consumers in 50 other countries. Why not in America?
When you hear what 34 million dollars buys in deceptive ads, here are the REAL facts!
By Brentwood News | October 12, 2012
Argument 1. This bill will cost California families billions in extra food costs, if Prop 37 passes.
50 other countries already label and they did not experience a cost increase.
With Prop 37 they have 18 months to change their labels.
• American food manufacturers already label GE ingredients sold in Europe but the same products sold on US shelves are not labeled. In fact most US food companies don’t use GE ingredients in the European version of their products because Europeans won’t buy them.
Argument 2. The proposition is “deceptive”, is written by trial lawyers and we should expect lawsuits like we did with Prop 65.
• The proposition was co-‐written by manufacturers, distributors, food safety lawyers, consumer groups, farmers, and concerned citizens like you and me. It was put before grocers and independent certifying groups before filing. It is written to protect businesses by removing incentives for lawsuits.
Prop 37 uses citizen’s action as the enforcement mechanism specifically to avoid the creation of a bureaucracy and the use of over-‐stretched government prosecutors.
• Proposition 37 requires advance notice of intent to sue and requires a cooling-‐off period of at least 30 days during which an alleged violator can correct the alleged violation.
Argument 3. Exemptions: They have no problem with labeling but our proposition has too many loopholes.
• Certain exemptions were included for practical reasons to make the law easier to comply with and to ensure that it would pass and withstand legal challenges. The initiative was written to encompass the foods that people eat most frequently -‐-‐ food on supermarket shelves. Exemptions include food sold in restaurants, alcohol and animals that have been fed genetically engineered feed.
Soy is genetically engineered and soy milk would require labeling. Since the cow is not genetically engineered at this time. cow's milk would not be labeled. Almonds are not genetically engineered so almond milk would not be labeled.
• California law only allows one issue to be addressed on each ballot proposition. Non GMO Livestock fed with GMOs, for example, are a separate state code and could not be dealt with in Proposition 37.
Argument 4. GMOs are Safe
There has been no long-term testing in the U.S, because Monsanto who owns over 11,000 patents on "seeds" that are now reclassified as "pesticides" won't allow independent testing.
The American Medical Association and World Health Organization/United Nations have said mandatory safety studies should be required -‐-‐ a standard that the U.S. fails to meet.
• A growing body of peer-‐reviewed studies links GMOs to allergies, organ damage, and other health problems. Genetically engineered foods have been on the market for more than 15 years and the first long-‐term, peer reviewed health study on GMO corn was just released – linking GMO corn to mammary tumors, kidney and liver problems and premature death. http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers
Remember that the same companies who are telling you GMOs are “safe”-‐-‐-‐ Monsanto and Dow-‐-‐-‐also told us that Agent Orange and DDT were safe. These companies having a long history of deceiving the public, endangering human health, and polluting our environment, are trying to deny us this basic right of knowing what's in our food.
Label GMO Video by Danny Devito & Friendshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1xHFwSYIg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Comments to date: 1. Page 1 of 1. Average Rating:
concerned about my food
11:53am on Saturday, October 13th, 2012
thank you for reporting the truth about the dangers in our food supply. Just label it!!