TOP ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
1
Lisa Rau Cannon is in Favor
This isn't a punitive surgen general's warning -- people are smart enough to decide for themselves if they're okay with eating GMO food. Some believe it's benign, others believe it's harmful. But you can't choose unless you have access to knowing which is which.TOP ARGUMENT AGAINST
7
Brad Hubbard is Against
I'm all for disclosure of what's in our food. However, the way in which this is done is a punitive measure against foods, rather than as an active labeling. It furthers an unproven (and in many cases disproven) bias against genetically modified products. I would vote for this law if it established a legal definition and protection for "GMO Free" as a food labeling standard. However, forcing everyone who is not GMO-free to label that seems to imply that there is something inherently bad about this, rather than a simple disclosure.0
Kevin Reevers is in Favor
I am not a person stating that GMOs are proven to be unhealthy. I am on however offend that an industry who has made these a norm and chooses not to educate me in what they are and how they work continuously insult my intelligence. There is a reason why they haven't labeled, they can't convince me that it's any better than natural product other than crop yield which is also convoluted. I don't care if my products are made with GMOs, but I do deserve the right to know.2
Russell Quintero is Against
There is zero evidence that GM food is at all dangerous. Genetically modifying food is a more efficient method of directly doing what we have done indirectly for thousands of years through selective breeding - creating new cultivars of crops with desirable traits. 2012 saw substantial crop losses due to global warming related droughts. These will only continue to get worse. Shifting weather patterns may change annual rainfall levels around the globe. Genetic modification allows a far faster ability to respond to these threats to crops and cropland by creating plants designed for their conditions. This isn't just an issue of progress vs fear. This is a moral issue. The UN estimates over 870 million people don't have enough food. Avoiding or punishing GM foods in an era of decreased crop yields can, and will, directly lead to the death of millions from starvation. Don't let your unsubstantiated fears contribute to global famine.0
Ritamarie Knizewski Little is in Favor
I'm sort of in favor - but I need a question answered: If a food meets the criteria for "organic" and organic clearly defines foods that are made or produced with GMOs, (which is does) why is there a need for this label? In fact, the organic label includes many of the foods (eggs, meat, milk) that this proposition excludes. While I am totally in favor of people being made aware of what they are eating, I think this might be a redundant solution. For example, I am a consumer looking for GMO free milk. I could easily buy organic now and know that it meets the non--GMO standard contained in the organic guidelines. If this passes, there will not be a GMO label placed on milk from a cow fed GMO corn because the prop exempts it. Nothing changes, except that consumers could think that since there is not GMO label on the non-organic milk, that it is non-GMO...which it is not.1
Brian Patrick Byrne is Against
First of all, I'm not convinced that genetically enhanced food is really somehow less healthy. Remember...genetically modified is NOT the same as chemically-treated! If a farmer figures out a way to make his or her crops less susceptible to pests, or can grow a bigger, juicier tomato, I don't see the harm in that. There are much more significant health risks that are NOT clearly marked on foods. If we really want to be informed about what we are eating and the health effects of eating that food, we should develop a much better way of labeling products than just insisting that we know whether the ingredients in something might have been "genetically modified"!1
Lisa Rau Cannon is in Favor
This isn't a punitive surgen general's warning -- people are smart enough to decide for themselves if they're okay with eating GMO food. Some believe it's benign, others believe it's harmful. But you can't choose unless you have access to knowing which is which.7
Brad Hubbard is Against
I'm all for disclosure of what's in our food. However, the way in which this is done is a punitive measure against foods, rather than as an active labeling. It furthers an unproven (and in many cases disproven) bias against genetically modified products. I would vote for this law if it established a legal definition and protection for "GMO Free" as a food labeling standard. However, forcing everyone who is not GMO-free to label that seems to imply that there is something inherently bad about this, rather than a simple disclosure.
110% Natural
If Californians vote in favor of Proposition 37, it will become mandatory for food produced from genetically modified plants or animals to be labeled as such. Further, it will prevent genetically modified food products from being advertised as "natural". Exempted foods include certified organic foods that are "unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material", or containing only trace amounts of genetically modified material. On the ballot it will appear under the title "Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute." View the official document.
How will you vote?
