Let me first establish one thing clearly from the outset: Monsanto is evil. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are the work of the Devil. The people of the country and the entire planet are at risk of becoming food slaves to a bioengineering super monopoly.
I’m going to assume that you already know this. If you don’t, just go to YouTube or Netflix or Google and plug in “Monsanto + GMO + EVIL”. There are dozens of well made, well researched documentaries, books and posting on the subject of GMO and the dangers it presents. Read articles and watch documentaries until your eyes pop out of your head like a FrankenSalmon and your mind is rocked by the magnitude of the evil genius involved. Then come back and read the rest of this post.
I’m not going to dispute the motivations of the many well intentioned people who are actively supporting California Proposition 37. They want to stop Evil from conquering the world.
The Devil is, of course, in the details. But before I delve deeply into the hellish specifics, let me summarize my objections to Prop 37:
- Government is the Problem, Not the Solution
- Private Solutions and the Free Market Are Already Working Very Well
- GMO and Non-GMO Products Are Already Clearly Labeled
- Individuals Are Responsible For Knowing What They Are Putting In Their Bodies
- The Primary Issue Is Not GMO Food, It Is Genetic Pollution and Food Monopoly
- Prop 37 Will Do Far More Harm Than Good
- The Primary Solutions are to End Government Permitting of Big Agra/Big Pharma Products and to Facilitate Punitive Private Legal Action
Big Government is the Problem, Not the Solution
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Declaration of Independence
In the American system, government is established to preserve our unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a private individual, group or other governmental body is in violation of our rights, we can turn to government for remedy. Any action or proposed power of government must be viewed through the lens of this authority.
Proponents of Prop 37 would argue that the measure would preserve our right to Life that is threatened by GMO foods, since healthy food is an essential component of Life. In principle, I might agree with that, but there are some important considerations before we can come to that conclusion.
First, we have become utterly accustomed to seeking redress of perceived and real violations of our rights by resorting to public, governmental intervention without first adequately exploring our recourse within the private sphere. In my view, government intervention into life of the nation and its people should come as a last resort, after all other private efforts at remediation have been exhausted. Before a recourse to government intervention can be considered, we need to evidence that the free market has failed to respond adequately to the matter at hand.
Further, when government is called upon as a recourse to abridged rights, the first step should be through legal action in the courts and the last step should be through the legislative empowerment of new bureaucratic authority.
As a people, our first impulse, when confronted with a violation of Life, Liberty or Happiness, is to run to government and demand a new law or a new bureaucracy to address it. There is a cost to be paid for this service. The Devil demands his payment in lost Liberty. As government expands in scope and size, Liberty diminishes. As a nation, we need to become less reliant on government and more oriented towards private solutions. George Washington famously said:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. “
The record shows that We the People have not been able to control the raging fire of ever growing Government, but rather, large scale, organized Corporate interests have become quite masterful at harnessing that force into an effective and dangerous servant.
I remember when I was a boy and the “seat belt law” was a raging issue. Across the nation, states were debating whether or not it was Constitutional to impose a law or pass a referendum mandating the required use of automobile seat belts. I distinctly recall Civil Libertarians arguing that government is not authorized under the Constitution to regulate such personal behaviors, that the use of a seat belt is an individual’s personal choice and that if we permit government to enter into the sphere of personal choice via the seat belt we would open ourselves up to limitless violations of our personal liberties. They were right. Washington’s warning about the unbridled force of government becoming the master rather than the servant is more than evident. Americans were persuaded to concede Liberty for safety (and, theoretically, lower auto insurance rates) and this then became a pattern. Every time government (or the forces that actually control it) wants to expand the scope and breadth and depth of its power, the new law, bureaucracy or regulation is rationalized by some sort of threat to safety, security, health or well being. This tactic relies on emotional button pushing to achieve its ends. And emotions around Genetically Modified foods are highly charged.
There is no reason to think that Prop 37 is any different from any other government based solution to any other real or perceived problem. It is a path to more Big Government which, in the final analysis, is only going to serve, rather than defeat, the interests it purports to oppose. Prop 37 will not in any way affect or damage or inhibit the interests of Monsanto and its associated Corporate powers.
You might say, “sure it won’t really do anything to stop The Devil and his Evil, but at least it’s a symbolic victory and it can’t do any harm to pass it”.
Can’t it? Sure it can. Read on.
GMO and Non-GMO Products Are Already Clearly Labeled
Ultimately, GMO products have succeeded because people buy them.
People buy them because they are cheap and because they presume them to be safe and healthy.
Consumers presume the safety and healthfulness of GMO products because there is an invisible label on every food product on every store shelf in America. It reads: APPROVED AND VERIFIED AS SAFE BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
After all, consumers need not concern themselves with the safety of food products since underlying every purchase is the belief that that responsibility has been carried out on their behalf by their government representatives. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.
Most proponents of Prop 37 would agree that the very government agencies that we rely upon to preserve our right to a healthy life, whether at the Federal or State level, are defacto wholly owned subsidiaries of the Big Food/Big Agra/Big Pharma Industrial Complex. The federal Food and Drug Administration and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are revolving doors through which power players pass on their way too and from highly paid positions in and around the Agra/Pharma corporatist nexus.
The purpose of the FDA and its related state level agencies is to remove decision making authority from the individual consumer and transfer it to a centralized location. At that central location, collectivized decisions are made for all consumers. Governmental agency subsidiaries of Corporatist power fulfill an important and highly valuable marketing function. They remove the requirement that individual consumers be knowledgeable about their consumption and they place an invisible yet highly effective subliminal “APPROVED” label on all products on the shelf.
The only other component of the decision making process left to the consumer is price. The simple fact is most consumers would choose to buy a product even if it carried a bold label stating, “Now with MORE GMO!” as long as it were the cheaper option. ”Value” is synonymous with “cheap” and price is the ONLY determinant, particularly given the implicit, ubiquitous, government sanctioning label on every box.
In addition to the government imposed invisible labeling, the market has created its own labeling system in response to forces of supply and demand.
Because many consumers demand it, producers of products that do not contain GMO or that are Organic label their products to reflect this fact.
The current labeling system produced by market forces is highly effective. If a product is Organic, it will be labeled as such. If a product does not contain GMO, it will be labeled to reflect that. At the same time, any product that contains no labeling with respect to its GMO content should be presumed to have GMO content. There is an absolute and total disincentive for any food producer marketing an Organic or Non-GMO product to omit such labeling. To do so would only serve to eliminate a key marketing advantage. This is a simple, highly effective and already available labeling system that is in place and requires zero government intervention or bureaucracy.
The argument that consumers “have a right to know” is rather silly. The fact of the situation is that most consumers have ceded their responsibility to know what is in their food by accepting the invisible labeling already on the products and consciously choosing the price label as their determinant factor of their buying decisions. Those consumers that want to know and who care to know take the time to inform themselves and look for the market sponsored labels and are willing to pay a few cents more.
Private Solutions and the Free Market Are Already Working Very Well
The Organic food industry is growing at an astronomical rate.
This is a direct response to market forces. People demand healthy non-GMO food and the market is supplying it. As supply increases, scale increases and economies of scale decrease costs. Prices fall. Demand increases again in response to greater availability and lower prices. It’s a virtuous circle. Truly a thing of beauty. It amazes me that in the course of the Prop 37 debate, no one has thought to point out that the market has already devised an entire industry providing a freely available alternative to GMO as well as a highly effective, low cost labeling system.
The market has also produced a huge boom in locally grown food, community supported agriculture, co-ops, farmer’s markets and other such associations of people freely cooperating to address the GMO food issue. We the People are taking personal responsibility for creating the food production and distribution system that we need.
There is also a plethora of freely available media to help any consumer who wants to learn about GMO, non-GMO and Organic foods on the internet. Anyone who wants to know, can know with a few clicks of the mouse.
If the market were not responding powerfully and rapidly to the government sponsored GMO invasion by producing an entire competitive industry, a labeling system, a production and distribution system and widespread information, then I might be more inclined to support a measure similar to Prop 37. But it has, and there is no sign that that trend is going to diminish. We’re better off focusing on areas that the market cannot or has not yet addressed, such as genetic pollution and food monopoly.
The Primary Issue Is Not GMO Food, It Is Genetic Pollution and Food Monopoly
As long as Genetically Modified foods exist in the marketplace, a large number of consumers will choose to buy them because they are the cheaper alternative. Labeling will not affect that in any way. Individuals are ultimately responsible for what they put in their bodies, and frankly most people just don’t give a damn. Consumption decisions are strictly personal decisions and government should not have any role to play in that arena. Caveat Emptor, “Let the Buyer Beware”, should be the whole of the law in that regard.
The market is already well on its way to tackling the GMO food issue in a far more efficient and effective manner than any government intervention. But there may be a need for government to step into the fray on other levels.
Government should, properly speaking, preserve our rights when they are being violated and there is no other course of remedy.
The greater threat of GMO is in genetic pollution. Once genetically modified organisms are released into the biosphere, they commingle with natural varieties and inevitably corrupt and permanently alter the genetic pool of the affected species. Unlike a polluted bay or a smog filled sky, genetic pollution is nearly impossible to reverse. This is a true threat to Life in the most fundamental sense.
Due to the immediacy of this threat, an appeal to government legal, legislative and administrative recourse is justified. The problem is that the very same government we would seek to redress such a grievance has officially sanctioned GMO!
In my opinion, the threat of genetic pollution cannot be managed at the level of the individual or the private sphere. It is a clear, present, defined and immediate public ecological and health menace perpetrated by known private interests.
It is illegal for anyone other than specifically licensed and sanctioned entities to produce or possess radioactive, fissionable nuclear materials. Genetically Modified organisms should be restricted in much the same way.
Food is an essential element of Life. If a small group of powerful interests gain control over food, then they control Life. By genetically polluting the food chain, Corporatist interests can effectively create a food monopoly. No greater threat to Liberty can be conceived.
The individual consumption of GMO food is a side issue. Genetic pollution and the potential for a permanent food monopoly are the true issues.
Prop 37 Will Do Far More Harm Than Good
I’m not going to vote for Prop 37 because it will not achieve any of its proponents’ aims. Instead, it may inadvertently forestall real solutions and make matters worse.
There is already an effective , market sponsored, low cost labeling regime in place. Prop 37 will disrupt this and complicate the terrain with unnecesary burdens and the threat of litigious action.
First, it places the burden of labeling requirements on the retailer rather than the producer of the product. This is inane. Prop 37 proponents make a show of wanting to beat back Big Food and Big Agra, yet this proposition does not place the onus where it belongs. Who will be subject to law suits? Who is required to maintain documentation of food GMO content? Conagra? Archer Daniels Midland? General Mills? Nestle? Kraft? Nope. The weight of the law will fall on retailers, from the biggest to the smallest.
If I were a small food retailer, I might decide to slap a “Could Possibly Maybe Contain Some GMO” label on everything, just to cover my ass. Of course, this is going to raise my costs since I’ll have to pay employees to do that. But whether done manually at the retail level or done at the level of the producer, all purpose disclaimer labels will likely become ubiquitous and will ultimately render GMO labeling meaningless.
Since the law eventually mandates a zero tolerance GMO level for non-labeled products, a standard that is probably impossible to attain due to widespread GMO contamination in the food supply and distribution chains of most products, it will become very difficult for many products that now label themselves “Non-GMO” or “Organic” to continue to do so. The organic food industry that offers the best hope for combatting the onslaught of genetic engineered foods could be severely compromised.
The Primary Solutions are to End Government Permitting of Big Agra/Big Pharma Products and to Facilitate Punitive Private Legal Action
The market did not create the GMO food problem. Government intervention facilitated and sanctioned it.
Massive government subsidies created the market for GMO corn and soybeans. It created the economies of scale that led to mass introduction of GMO into the food supply. FDA sanctioned GMO and put an invisible but omnipresent label of approval on every box. Without government intervention the Big Food/Agra/Pharma leviathan could not have gained a position of market dominance so rapidly.
GMO must be defeated on the field of battle that is the marketplace. It must become less profitable to produce than Natural or Organic alternatives. A label on a box is not going to do that. As long as it is cheaper, most people will still eat it.
Here’s a list of alternate solutions which stand a better chance of actually driving GMO products from the market.
1. Eliminate all food labeling requirements. Let food companies compete for the consumer dollar on the basis of the quality of their labeling. Resurrect “caveat emptor”; let individual consumers be responsible for knowing what they are purchasing and eating. Let new, private product rating and testing companies emerge and compete to provide the highest quality evaluations of product content and safety.
2. Authorize punitive fines and legal damages for false or misleading labeling. Instead of mandating required labeling, impose penalties for false labeling. Let personal and class action lawsuits against food companies that falsely represent their products or market harmful products work to regulate behavior.
3. Regulate Genetically Modified Organisms as Biohazardous Materials. Let the next Prop 37 equivalent mandate that state authorities should classify GMO as a hazmat material subject to the same controls as any other threat to public health and safety.
4. Eliminate the Food and Drug Administration. Prevent the Big Food/Agra/Pharma nexus from using government power for its own ends by eliminating their wholly owned marketing subsidiary in the Federal government: the FDA. Similar action should be taken at the State level as well.
Measures #1 and 2 will force GMO food producers to compete on a level playing field. A company that is proud of its ingredients will list them on the box and consumers will buy then with confidence. Independent rating and testing firms (similar to Consumer Reports) will compete to provide the public with the best, most up to date information. A company that fails to list its ingredients will be assumed to be selling GMO and non-Organic products. Ultimately, generic, unlabeled products will lose customer share and will be squeezed out of the market.
Measures #3 and 4 are more long term in nature but ultimately necessary to restoring true food safety and a fully functioning, healthy food economy.
Reading list:
How the (Finally Ended) Corn Ethanol Subsidy Made Us Fatter
Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011.
U.S. Organic Industry Overview
Organic Food Sales Growth Outpaces Rest of Grocery Industry
Consumer-driven U.S. organic market surpasses $31 billion in 2011
Text of California Proposition 37 (November 2012)
California’s Proposition 37: Effects of Mandatory Labeling of GM Food
Proposition 37 Advisory III: Frequently Asked Questions
LITIGATION INCENTIVES INHERENT IN PROPOSITION 37
October 28th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
It’s hard to get the sheeple to understand about GMO’s, but I do not want more government. Bottom line is you are responsible what you put in your body. Prop 37 was written by trail lawyers!
October 29th, 2012 at 6:20 am
Okay “Pete”, to say Prop 37 is written by trial lawyers is like saying anything in a bill is written by legal minds. Duh. How many lawyers are involved in saying NO to prop 37? How much money has been spent telling us GMO labeling is bad for us? The problem is people are generally in the dark about this and just don’t know. Most products don’t say whether they are non-GMO or GMO, and if we ask at a store “is this GMO?” we mostly get “I don’t know.” We live in a government controlled health world. So if we won’t get warnings, like “this product may harm you” –what are we to do? Have nothing? The fact studies show GMOs as being harmful and we STILL have no larger medical studies or outlawing of GMO shows we cannot let the dominant corporations police themselves. Prop37 may not be perfect, yet saying nothing is far more imperfect. BTW do you work for Monsanto? Just curious.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:26 am
TK, you need to actually read the post. I mean really actually read it.
The market has already provided and excellent labeling system. If it does not say “Organic” or “No GMO” then it does contain GMO.
October 29th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
The only problem I have with this blog is that, depending on where you shop for food, foods are not always clearly labeled as non GMO. Where I buy vegetables, since I don’t buy the boxed name brand items in the middle of the store, I don’t get the benefit of knowing which is which. If I want corn, there is a bin named “CORN”. If I want carrots, there is a bin named “CARROTS”. There is no distinction between GMO and non GMO. Since I have a limited budget, I do not have the luxury of traveling distances to shop elsewhere at higher prices. I’m stuck with what I have for the time being. That should not mean I don’t have the right to know the difference, which you can’t distinguish by sight. I don’t want more government, but I have the right to know.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
You should try asking the grocer! If his corn is GMO, he will know. Also, only certain veggies have been GMO’d so far. I don’t think there are GMO carrots yet. A simple google search should tell you which have been GMO’d and then you could just ask your grocer. And tell him to put up a sign that says…”NOT GMO”. It will only help his business.
It may take another year or so, but if a grocer is selling a non-GMO veggie for which there is a GMO version, they will post it as No GMO because it only helps his sales.
October 29th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
I’ll look into doing that. I don’t know what kind of response I’ll get being that this is a Kroger owned store, but it’s a good idea.
October 30th, 2012 at 12:38 am
You don’t “think there have been…” Hmm, maybe you’d know if it was labeled… Get it?
October 30th, 2012 at 12:36 am
Down with Big Gov that has frown put of control! Remember that as George Washington once said, government is like fire; a useful servant or a fearful master. Here, howerever, I respectfully disagree with my friend, Steven Vincent, who has done so much painstaking research on the pernicious deeds and deceptions by Monsanto in the name of GMO’s or GE foods. Lets show our big, bloated Federal Gov how we do things in CA just as we demanded with our decision to legalize medical Marijuana for sick people and pass Prop 37! Lets make history once more, Californians. States’ rights!
October 30th, 2012 at 2:17 am
I need to see that the free market has failed before I can support a statist solution. We can’t say that in this case. I would support a prop that prevents the cultivation of GMO in CA or the importation into CA of GMO seeds for cultivation in order to prevent the contamination of the CA biosphere. That would fit within the proper role of government, to prevent the spread of a contamination.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Steven, how would a Prop that “prevents the cultivation of GMO in CA or the importation into CA of GMO seeds for cultivation” not also be a “statist solution” in your opinion, since you feel simply labeling our food as GMO or GE would be a “statist solution”? Might this be a matter of degree, with Prop 37 being a starting point for the Props you – I feel quite wisely – suggest? I know it is difficult for people like us who understand the impact of companies like Monsanto on our food, to also understand that there are millions of people out there shopping for food who have no idea what the terms “GMO” and “GE” mean. My point here is that if these same people began seeing these terms on the food they bought, it most certainly would make them wonder and in most cases investigate further what this means. We now have the opportunity – a precious, narrow window at that – to awaken people up here in California to this very dangerous procedure of contamination of our food supply, before it has become completely out of control. You say you’d like to see that the free market has failed before we take such measures, yet isn’t California our community? Surely you must agree that this Prop would hurt Monsanto. IF this were not the case, why then would they be pumping upwards of 1 million $ per day to fight Prop 37? If we don’t take control, surely someone else will. I don’t like the idea of that some one else being Monsanto. The old Edmund Burke quote comes to mind here for me: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” With Prop 37 we now have the chance to do something for good and against evil. We know Monsanto and GMO foods are in fact evil. It’s up to us to act accordingly!
October 30th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
If you want to have an educational campaign to alert the public to GMO, then have an educational campaign to alert people to GMO. Form an association of free individuals, collaborate together to produce flyers, brochures, radio and TV ads, news articles, blog postings, videos and do media interviews. It would be EASY to raise the money and have one person in front of every food market in CA every day for a month giving out a basic flyer about GMO. Inform people on what to look for, which veggies may be GMO, why they should not choose products with HFC, ect… Those people could even be paid to do it.
Don’t offload that responsibility on government.
October 30th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Controlling the distribution and handling of toxic biohazards is a function of government; conducting an educational campaign on food quality isn’t.
November 1st, 2012 at 1:18 am
GMO’s have been around for years and years. Most people are completely unaware. I already spend hundreds (maybe thousands) more a year buying Organic because I hope it’s not GMO. (If you read the Organic guidelines, it can’t be GMO, unless there is no other alternative… So, like I said, I HOPE it is not GMO.) If anything, prop 37 will LOWER my grocery bills. We’ve been eating GMO’s unknowingly for so long, the free market has failed us already. I’m not willing to wait for a lawsuit to fix my health problems. I’d just like to know my food is real. And yes, I am angry the government has allowed this deception. But I am not in lala land believing it will fix itself with the free market. Not in this case. By time there is enough evidence to sue or by time a new bill passes about deceptive labeling, it will be too late and I and everyone I know will be much sicker for it. A million studies proving rats grow tumors when they eat GMO food won’t turn profiteers like Montsanto into caring saints. And a million lawsuits won’t put them out of business – not anytime soon. I’m a hard core constitutionalist and I support Prop 37 because I believe it is the people’s right to know. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got now – nothing. This can go into effect while Steven Vincent lobbies the government to label GMOs as toxic. Good Luck!
October 30th, 2012 at 4:07 am
The free market has utterly failed. Only a few companies are labeling non GMO like Strauss Dairies. No company that sells products containing GMOs is going to label as such, as they know it is the kiss of death. We need labeling – parents are unwittingly feeding infants GMO formula, simply unacceptable. Kids health is more important than the free market.
October 30th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Waltk through any grocery store and you will see products labeled “Organic” or “No GMO” next to GMO unlabeled products everywhere. Non GMO food producers are realizing the value of adding that to their labels and this is increasing and accelerating because of demand. The market is working.
October 30th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I agree with you Steven that the market is working very well in this area. And there are open source online communities and apps now that people can use to locate organic farms, markets, and restaurants which I find to be such a beautiful creation.
I feel now when I buy these products I am buying something of value because it is created based on innovation and freedom and a persons choice to have an ethical business. I want to support these people and not the ones who are labeling because they are forced to. I want to know the difference between these companies and if this law is passes I won’t know the difference as they will all appear to be the same.
If the issue is being concerned about people who do not know about how to find organic or non GMO foods then it seems to me the better solution is to educated them on where to shop and where it is affordable. To help people become more aware of their choices. There are many choices available.
I know it appears to be a good thing and that it looks like passing the bill will hurt Monsanto, but there are so many things to consider, like you posted in your blog that people need to be talking about.
It was pointed out to be recently that big corporations want more regulations because it doesn’t hurt them, it makes them invincible to the competition. How Monsanto may just end up owning the people who are in the position of defining the terms of what is and what is not GMO or organic. Look at the FDA today. I don’t trust anything they say at all when it comes to nutrition and health in food. How can we allow government to take over and take care of this based on them defining terms and regulations? This I am afraid is how we stop being alert and innovative because people think it’s being taken care of when in fact they just make it appear that it is. Just like the big pharma/ FDA scam we have today.
October 30th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Lots of excellent points made Julee. I also make personal, conscious choices to add to the demand side of the equation for non-GMO and healthy food every time I vote with my fiat dollars. I am really flabbergasted by the Prop 37 proponents who only see The Evil Menace and do not see the flourishing of Liberty as supply responds beautifully to demand and people freely associate to create the economy they need. It’s also notable that people from across political boundaries are cooperating in creating this…dems, repubs, conserves, libs, libertarians…everybody wants good food and everybody is coming together to make it happen.
And yes, the Corporatists will probably find a way to turn the best of intentions back around and use it as a weapon, as they always have done. Hijack government power for their own ends.
November 1st, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“And yes, the Corporatists will probably find a way to turn the best of intentions back around and use it as a weapon, as they always have done. Hijack government power for their own ends.”
This is what I am specifically worried about. And yes, I could be wrong or paranoid, but it’s upsetting that no one supporting this bill (that I have seen so far) is addressing this concern, because it seems very likely to occur given the nature of how things work in this “crony capitalist” system we live in.
I was recently given the example of the car industry in this country and how regulations squeezed the small companies out of the market. There were once 100′s if not more car companies operating in this country and now there are only a few. Why did only a few survive? This is something that needs to be looked at.
It seems like a valid concern to me that this could happen in the food industry. It would be something that would gradually occur over a period of 10 years or so, so that no one notices it right away. It may appear to be working at first, but then slowly the small guys are squeezed out. Am I paranoid?
There is an economic term for this called “regulatory capture” that I keep mentioning in my posts.. I’m just repeating it so it’s clear what I am concerned about.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:46 am
Regulatory capture isn’t a term I had heard before, but it’s a good way of describing the phenomenon. Thanks.
October 30th, 2012 at 5:43 am
great job and it is about more or less government I more likey will vote yes on it but I agree we cannot let the govenment be the nanny all the time it is time for everyone to step up and know what they are doing to thier bodies.
October 30th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Again, it seems pretty obvious to me that passing Prop 37 will indeed hurt Monsanto. OTherwise they would not be spending upwards of one million $ per day on advertising trying to stop it. It will cost taxpayers nothing. the Truth hurts only those with something to hide. In this case, we know who this is.
October 30th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
“Hurting Monsanto” is a little bit of an emotionalistic reaction, not a clear political goal and strategy. Liberals tend to operate from emotion, not principle. Just sayin’….
October 31st, 2012 at 6:05 am
Dear Dr. Spock, actually, it’s just a matter of accuracy. I wonder why it seems so hard to understand for some people this fact: Monsanto is spending a million dollars a day to fight Prop 37, therefore Monsanto does not want Prop 37 passed. If you are spending a million dollars per day to try to stop something, I think it’s simply logical, not necessarily “emotional”, to conclude that this matter is very important and losing this kind of battle, might “hurt” you in some way. Am I clear now? “Just sayin’?” I don’t know…that sounds a bit emotional to me ~ hah!
October 31st, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Right, but why is it some kind of overriding goal to “hurt” Monsanto? They’re not even the biggest player in the whole Big Food/Big Agra complex. Sure, they suck big time, but shouldn’t we be looking at a larger picture? I’m more concerned with the “hurt” that has been piling up over a hundred years of abandoning Liberty in favor of statist solutions. Particularly when the market IS responding to this problem (a fact which nobody wants to even acknowledge).
October 30th, 2012 at 5:50 am
I agree with Steven, the more I think of it. We should ignore government as much as possible and not rely on them to be involved in anything and especially not in something as important as food. As it is now, I feel safer with the Organic and non GMO scene as it is. I trust the labeling because the companies do it based on their own desire to do so and to create a product people like. They do it because it is profitable to them now based on the current market. I don’t think I will trust the labeling or the market once it is a law. These food manufactures who aren’t already going the healthy organic route will only recent having to do so, and why would anyone want to buy products from them in the first place? Wouldn’t you rather buy products from the people who are already creating healthy safe food because they do it by choice? After a law like this is passed we won’t know the real ones from the ones who were forced to do it.
October 30th, 2012 at 5:57 am
resent not recent.
October 31st, 2012 at 4:54 am
I so agree with you on this. One thing you don’t mention and it is a very important point with me is that this Prop brings in Codex Alimentarius into the Prop and into California in the form of the “authority” to say what’s in the food and what isn’t. Codex Alimentarius is perhaps the most oppressive piece of written work I’ve ever had the displeasure to read — and even then I couldn’t read it all without becoming sick to my stomach. It’s an extremely important point — and is one of the main points argued in the first 14 minute clip that Gary Null did on this subject.
October 31st, 2012 at 5:46 am
I’ve heard mention of Codex several times but don’t have any specific info on that. Can you show us how Prop 37 relates to Codex?
October 31st, 2012 at 8:34 am
Kay, I’m a big fan of Gary Null, too. And in fact, Gary is a big supporter of Prop 37! (Sorry if that exclamation point seemed a bit “emotional”, but I got a little excited) you can read Gary’s thoughts on this here: http://www.garynull.com/home/is-the-end-of-monsanto-near-prop-37-succeeding-as-nations-ba.html
Thankfully, there is nothing in the two pages of Prop 37 that supports Codex Alimentarius. You can check this out for yourself by reading the text of the Prop 37. http://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative
October 31st, 2012 at 8:38 am
What is Gary Null’s position on Prop 37? He’s been at this for years and knows the system and corruption, so I am very curious to know his opinion.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:01 am
His position on Prop 37 is the same as Dr. Mercola’s. Yes on Prop 37. Click on the link above in my reply there to see for yourself
Oh, no… I hope emoticons aren’t too emotional! Hellllp!
October 31st, 2012 at 9:50 pm
OK Emo girl let your “feelings” run riot! Just don’t let them cloud your judgement
October 31st, 2012 at 7:55 pm
I will spend some time today reading or listening to Gary Null on this today. Maybe he addresses some of the things I am worried about. I would imagine he understands how corrupt the government and FDA are by now, so I would imagine if he is also aware of “Regulatory Capture.” I am not hearing people who support this bill addressing this concern which is what I am worried about. (But maybe it has been addressed and I am not aware of it yet) Passing a bill isn’t always going to solve a problem and might create a worse one later. I feel my posts may have been misunderstood when I was suggesting that the free market is creating innovative ways right now to solve the problem by not relying on authority or abstractions like “government” to solve problems. I should have clarified that free market solutions to GMO foods are in a beginning phase, so may not be so obvious now, but are happening quickly and will grow if we allow them to.
October 31st, 2012 at 8:10 am
I think what is being left out of the conversation here, is the fact that average people trying to raise kids may not even be aware of the existence of GMOs. They are unwittingly feeding their kids toxic food that they have no way of knowing even exists. I find it at best misguided at worst extremely elitist to assume that people juggling several jobs, kids, eldercare and have lives maybe very different from the people who have time to blog here, should not be entitled to know what is in their food. Believe me this is about the shortest and simplest proposition or indeed legal document/legislation I have ever laid eyes on, so the argument that it is complicated is patently absurd. I have seen lengthier documents presented in small claims court. Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont must be so very happy to have you guys doing their work for them.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:49 pm
I agree. A public education campaign about GMO is a good idea. There are literally MILLIONS of people (most are educated and relatively well off financially) who are up in arms over this, so it shouldn’t be too hard to put a big, effective campaign together. Creating a new bureaucracy is not a public education campaign or a substitute for one.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:10 am
This is true. Many people I speak with have no idea what the tern “GMO” means. As I mentioned in a comment above, labeling for these people would be a first and crucial step in awareness.
Ask yourself one question here: why was there no debate and controversy over the labeling of foods produced in factories where nuts, eggs or milk had been processed? why not uproar over listing carbs and grams of fat? The answer is of course billions of dollars for a company called Monsanto with a few billion each for Dupont for their dangerous franken-junk food poison.
California is our community, our state and this is our chance to be heard. Want to be silent? Then please step aside. As Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
October 31st, 2012 at 5:39 pm
@ Steve – it is exactly because “big government” in the form of the FDA has failed in their obligation to protect “life – liberty – ” by approving GMOs in the first place, that we must “nullify” their wrongful and crony capitalist decision utilizing STATES RIGHTS as a remedy. That way all those who want to consume GMOs will be happily FREE to do so, those of us who would like to be FREE not to eat them will know where they hide, and those who have never heard of GMOs will HAVE THE FREEDOM to find out for themselves what this is all about, because the information will be on the product. Your argument that people should turn to the courts to fight Monsanto: Hello?? Earth to Steve? Do you know how many farmers across the globe are trying their hardest to fight for their rights to save their own seeds (property right people!!) against these chem giants through the court system?? Do you know how deep Monsanto’s pockets are, and how much it costs to fight through the court system? Let’s come down to earth here and live in the real world for a second. Mosanto is the very definition of Fascism because it is the collusion of BIG GOVERNMENT with corporate power. Google Michael Taylor.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:55 pm
I don’t think you “nullify” one big government effect by creating another.
Monsanto spends more on silk toilet paper for the executive washrooms than they are spending on Prop 37. It’s a drop in the bucket for them. “I want it because Monsanto doesn’t” is not a reasoned political strategy.
We’re setting up “Monsanto” here like the word “Nazi”. Anytime a statist wants to cancel out discourse they throw out “Nazi!” or “racist!” or some other pejorative that shuts down critical thinking. “Monsanto” is playing that role here.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Steve, no one has said Nazi or Racist – accuracy please. Fascist is a fact based word – it is the merging of big government with corporate power which fits Monsanto EXACTLY – I think the ad hominem attacks – mild though they are – are coming from your end – implying pro 37 responses are “emotional” or “liberal”. They are clearly neither – simply reasoned opinion.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:56 pm
I didn’t say that anyone said either nazi or racist, just that Monsanto is often used in the same vein. It’s a push button word that gets an automated response, just like nazi or racist. Since today’s corporatism is our contemporary version (American style) of nazism I would agree that Monsanto fits the bill….marriage of public power and private interest.
October 31st, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Michael Taylor, Monsanto, FDA, that is
October 31st, 2012 at 5:59 pm
[...] http://stevenvincent.me/2012/10/18/prop-37-gmo/ [...]
October 31st, 2012 at 11:18 pm
I would like to add that IF this prop passes and IF it is effective without creating the usual problems that come with Big Government statist solutions then no one will be more pleased than me and I will admit I was wrong. But that’s a big IF.
November 1st, 2012 at 9:17 am
When (and “IF”) a person is big enough to admit when they’re wrong, I get emotional
November 1st, 2012 at 12:23 am
Clarification regarding Codex Alimentarius Commission as pertaining to Prop 37:
Prop 37 does not in any way support, promote or further help to expand the law of CODEX into the USA. Codex is not law in the USA, and the reference to CODEX is only to require testing for GMOS to submit to the particular standards that CODEX published. Apparently (I have been told) CODEX didn’t even came up with these standards, but just published them. They are very strict for testing the presence of GMOs.
To further explain, a non-GMO manufacturer doesn’t even have to label their food if they get it certified by an independent GMO testing organization, such as THE “NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED” SEAL-http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/.
Any companies that want to test for GMOs must be approved by the CA Dept. of Health. Prop 37 directs the CA Dept. of Health, with the reference to the CODEX testing standards, that GMO testing companies that apply to officially test and certify food as non-GMO, must, by a minimum, meet the CODEX procedures, because those procedures are internationally recognized and are strict laboratory testing standards. This will then, not allow the CA government to pervert the testing procedures for the benefit of the GMO industry, thus adulterating the food, meaning that…
The CODEX reference is there to limit the ability of the CA Dept. of Health to approve testing procedures not strict enough.The CA Dept. of Health won’t themselves be under pressure from Monsanto supporting industry testing companies that apply, to approve false testing procedures to the GMO industry’s advantage. Apparently the Dept. of Health may also get captured under the influence of the GMO industry.
Also, these standards will limit the number of companies that can officially test and certify something to be GMO free. According to reliable source the CODEX testing standards were written in, in great part, to protect the Non-GMO Project Verified.
Hope this helps.
November 1st, 2012 at 5:18 am
I was prepared to vote yes on 37 until I read this. I felt that more public disclosure would be a good thing. I’ve changed my mind.
You present a well thought out and very compelling argument. I am glad I took the time to read this, and will be using some of the same principles you remind us of to revisit my stance on the other props as well. Please forward this to everyone you know!
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:06 am
Hey, Julee, Steven and Albert! Have you all checked out what “Regulatory Capture” means? I did. Here you go:
“Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called “captured agencies”.
So according to this definition, and just using a bit of common sense, it seems that there simply is no way Prop 37 could “advance the commercial or special interests” of any “large firms”, since we all seem to agree here that big companies like Monsanto, Dupont etc., are campaigning diligently with over 1 million dollars a day to keep people from voting YES on Prop 37. These are not the small farmers, but of course the “large firms”. They know that they have the potential of losing much more $ if Prop 37 is passed and Californians are allowed to know which foods are poisoned with GMO’s. They know they will be exposed and they do not like this one bit.
For all of you who doubt that “government” (though this is in fact local and not federal – a BIG difference) simply cannot be trusted to even oversee the simple labeling of GMO’s in food products, let me ask you this. How and why did you trust an even BIGGER government with auditing the Federal Reserve? And how do we know they told us the truth in this precious “partial audit”? And what exactly has this done for us anyway, by the way? Has it helped us to spot dangerous poisons in our food so that we may vote with our dollars and cause it to go away? Sadly, of course, the answer is no. For this reason, should we have given up this cause?
My point is this: The FDA, like the Federal Reserve are not going to go away because we don’t like them. What we CAN do, is take steps to change things – especially if we act on a State level – for the better. Prop 37 is simply one very important step in the right direction.
It seems quite clear to me also that only GMO foods which have plenty to hide, might be disadvantaged by smarter consumers voting with their dollars, if Prop 37 passes. As it is now, we cannot do this effectively, since it is not clear to most people exactly what foods are GMO.
Our food supplies, gardens, orchards, farms et al are being contaminated more every day by the pernicious practices of companies like Monsanto that frankly do not care. This is our chance to take a small step in possibly slow down this horrible trend, by giving people the ability to make a real, informed decision.
I agree with Steve on his headline: The “The Devil you Know” is indeed Monsanto. If you agree with this as well, then I hope you’ll vote YES on Prop 37.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:29 am
Of Coarse I read what “regulatory capture” means otherwise I wouldn’t have been referencing it to illustrate what I am worried about happening. It describes it quite well.
It seems we have a different interpretation of the term and also the power that Monsanto has and how deep the corruption goes.
“Regulatory capture is what happens when regulated industries are able to gain influence over their regulator, so that regulation that ostensibly serves the public interest actually supports the interest of the industry concerned.”
It’s a complicated and sneaky game that seems to be the missing link in almost all political conversations, because things are not as they appear. The game doesn’t work like how we think it does, (according to this theory) and people aren’t yet talking about this enough and they need to be.
The issue of regulatory capture has been written about for a long time. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson wrote:
If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?
“ ….. they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it.”
It would make sense for Monsanto to spend millions to keep this Prop from passing just to avoid the major inconveniences and far more costly expenses the company would have to go through in redirecting their focus onto “capturing the government.” And it seems rather likely that they will stop at nothing to keep from going under.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
I agree with you and Woodrow Wilson, Julee that our Federal government has gotten closer to big business. In fact, as Jenny pointed out, Obama even made former Monsanto man, Michael Taylor our Food Czar. Fortunately on the State level here in CA, we actually have the opportunity to fight this connection between Big Gov and Big Biz, and let in informed public vote with their food dollars as to who’s food and products they buy.
Aren’t you glad the sugar, fats, protein and carb content are listed on foods? Personally, I’m glad I don’t have to risk a hypoglycemic coma due to lack of labeling. And if I had an alergy to nuts, I’d also be glad that it’s required to label products that, though they are not nuts or dairy, have been manufactured in places that might contain nuts or dairy. This labeling could prevent sickness and even death in some cases, I’m sure.
Ask yourselves this: how much destruction, how much damage to our ecosystem, how much forced mutation of insects and bacterium, how much sickness, how much birth defects, cancer and death, are we to put up with for how long, enduring how many expensive lawsuits for compensation by Monsanto, or some other deep-pockets corporation, before we take action with a simple, straightforward measure like requiring a label on GMO foods by passing Prop 37?
This wold not even “restrain” these monsters, but at least would give consumers the choice whether to buy or to boycott this poison. I think we deserve the choice, don’t you?
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:03 pm
If we had allowed the market to develop naturally, instead of developing massive big government bureaucracies around the myriad labeling laws, there would be entire companies specializing in well labelled products serving everyone who had special dietary needs. There would be “No Nuts Brand” food which guarantees that all its foods have no nuts for people who can’t eat them. And there would be specialized product lines and entire companies serving all the other needs of the market. All without government growing and growing and growing with every new specialized problem that it attempts to solve for EVERYONE in the interest of the few that need it.
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT, WILL NOT AND WILL NEVER CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY PUT IN THEIR BODIES. Even if its labeled “Now with more GMO” people will buy it if it is cheap. They won’t buy it if it is not cheap. As a yoga teacher for the last 6 years I have preached the ills of GMO and processed foods up and down. People rarely listen. I know people that I have told them and shown them about aspartame and they still drink and eat products that have it regularly. Prop 37 proponents are making the same mistake that liberals always make…they think that everyone thinks and feels as they do, or they think they have the right to FORCE everyone to think and feel as they do. In a free society, people make their own decisions and are RESPONSIBLE for making their own decisions. Wanna shoot up heroin and wreck your life? It’s your life, go for it. Wanna eat cheap food without regards to the consequences? That’s your call. We are each individually responsible for knowing and CARING about what we put in our bodies. Most people don’t care and won’t be responsible for themselves. It’s a sad fact, but that’s how people are. More people might take personal responsibility for themselves if the safety net of Big Mommy Government wasn’t there, and they would then have to pay attention to such things as food content. I shop healthy by using common sense. I informed myself about which foods might be potentially GMO (the list is short) and I don’t buy foods that have those ingredients unless it is clearly marked Non-GMO or Organic. Sure, the government mandated labels help that process. But if there was no government coercion involved, I would be buying the brands that did label or the “We Label Better” company foods. And if I had to pay a premium for that service, I would pay it.
We will never get off the Big Government treadmill that is destroying this country if we don’t stop giving in to the creation of more bureaucracy and more regulation every time it suits our personal preferences. Is it my personal preference that GMO be driven out and “Monsanto” be hurt and punished. HELL YES! But I am not going to let my personal preference cloud my judgement about the larger problems of government and society that need to take precedence. THE GMO PROBLEM WOULD NEVER EXIST IF WE DIDN’T ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF BIG NANNY STATE GOVERNMENT.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 am
As far as the labeling as it is now, I agree with Steven that the free market is addressing GMO issue now. If it doesn’t say non GMO then we should know not to buy it. The free market is working well and growing rapidly in this area. With the birth of phone apps and smart phones, the free market is becoming even more powerful.
To address the concern of other people not being aware of how to avoid GMO or what they are, I will use the High Fructose Corn Syrup situation as an example.
High Fructose Corn Syrup has been around since the 70′s. It wasn’t the labeling that caused people to stop buying products with this ingredient, it was education, information being shared about the dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Mostly because of the internet, chain emails, news articles, and then the various media that caused people to stop buying these products and seeking out a better product.
I believe that is what is happening now with GMO’s. Information and knowledge is spreading rapidly, which takes on a life of it’s own, which is much bigger and more powerful than government. And that, I believe, is the only way to actually hurt Monsanto.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:34 am
So all the produce you buy at “fresh ‘n’ Easy” is labeled “Non-GMO”, Julee?
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:05 pm
And now the market is now providing labels that say “NO HFC”.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:34 am
Yes, I am glad that food is labeled the way it is. I absolutely rely on that to buy my food. I don’t believe companies are motivated to do this because it is a law. Some maybe, but not all. It would be obvious to an ethical company to do this regardless and also because it would give them a competitive edge over the companies that didn’t. They would understand that the consumers want this and then they would provide it to them in order to sell the product.
November 2nd, 2012 at 4:39 pm
California state government is not a “local” government and it is bigger than most national governments. It is BIG GOVERNMENT incarnate. Sacramento might as well be in Turkey. It is in no way close to the people it governs.
The Devil would be nowhere without Hell. Hell makes the Devil what he is. Government is Hell. Big Agra gained its rapid, dominant market position through Big Government intervention. Without it, it would never have succeeded.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:35 am
They actually are motivated to do this because it is a law. Sorry to report this. It’s just true.
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Companies aren’t motivated to label their products only because it is law if labeling there products is actually their selling strategy. And it’s pretty obvious that the demand for this is huge.
This kept me awake last night as it started becoming even more worrisome to me. My first reaction was to vote yes on Prop 37 and voting no will be hard because voting no actually does go against what appears to be right. But my mind will not stop thinking and looking at it closer.
Last night I noticed that if an organic food company is actually against Prop 37 they can’t even publicly come out and say this because the issue has become garbled and twisted so that they would instantly be demonized and accused of working with Monsanto and not given a chance to explain why they are against it. A marketing nightmare for them, so I am sure they are advise to not saw anything as the ones that have are now being demonized.
There was actually a forum to create an email list of organic companies against Prop 37 to make people aware of them so they can black list them. People aren’t even asking why!! When intelligent people quit asking questions, something is wrong. A google search isn’t pulling up information allowing these companies to explain their positions as to why they are against it. People aren’t asking them and making assumptions.
Organic companies supporting this agreed it will make things more expensive for them but are willing to take that risk. Maybe they are the ones who already have a following at places like Whole Foods so aren’t worried.
What kept me awake last night was my overactive imagination thinking that Monsanto and companies alike could be behind Prop 37. They could be so threatened with what they are seeing coming just around the corner with new trends in technology and free information and apps like Real Time Farms and what they saw happen with High Fructose Corn Syrup and the food companies have already gone under that use crappy ingredients, that they want to make healthy foods only available to wealthy. Most Americans can’t afford Whole Foods as it is right now. I rely on Trader Joe’s and Fresh & Easy. They could be trying to make it that only places with Whole Foods Market prices will survive.
In one of my recent business sustainability classes, the basic college book course text book I was reading had a section on how Trader Joe’s is a real threat to the grocery store industry. These giants like Ralphs and Vons simply can not compete with Trader Joe’s and are very worried. Trader Joe’s is booming while they can barely stay afloat. It is no secret that a strategy in business sustainability, companies will try and make things more difficult on their competition in order to survive.
Again, I may be paranoid, but I am getting that “off feeling” with Prop 37 and the deeper I look at it the more I can justify that feeling.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:19 pm
And for the record, Trader Joe’s (the only place to buy affordable organic non GMO food that is booming is business) is not openly endorsing Yes on Prop 37. People are already starting to demonize them. As a business strategy they can’t even attempt to rationally explain why they aren’t endorsing it at this point. People are becoming hysterical and wouldn’t even give them a chance to explain.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I really doubt that 37 is somehow a backdoor move by Big Agra. I would be worried about the costs imposed on retailers who specialize in non-GMO, because the bureaucratic paperwork required to protect themselves from legal attack is going to disproportionally affect those smaller retailers, while the big chains, which already have big compliance departments, will be less affected. The cost of proving that your food is non-GMO will almost certainly make it less available to the public, since smaller retailers will end up choosing to not carry non-gmo in order to avoid the whole hassle. Or they may slap a generic “could possibly have some GMO” label on everything, rendering the label meaningless.
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSkjnz5eUE4&w=560&h=315%5D
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Steve you are so wrong, and the reason Prop 37 is on the ballot at all is because of a Mom feeding her kid GMO tainted formula she did not know was tainted with GMO because she had never heard of GMOs. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!! We have the right to know pure and simple!! Why do you want to intervene in MY RIGHT TO KNOW? Because people in your yoga class still drink diet coke after you have told them about aspartame you think everyone is like this?? They are not, and many people are duped into thinking that because it’s allowed to be sold it must be safe, as this poor mother thought as she was unwittingly poisoning her kid. Please people, we are fighting a monster here, unless of course you are just as elitist as those who seek to wipe out eighty percent of those useless eaters. Could you embed above video? Thanks
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:10 pm
I think we all agree that we are fighting a monster. It’s the strategy in which to fight the monster is what we have different views on.
I am sure Prop 37 will be passed. The best thing that can happen from it is that it causes more people to start talking about it, like a media frenzy, and hopefully those who are unaware will pay attention and then figure out how to buy the safe foods.
But honestly, most people I know never read labels and completely trust that if it is for sale at Wal-Mart then it is safe. All the people in my family in Missouri eat MSG and aspartame even though I have pleaded with them not to. Labeling won’t help them. Affordable organic food will help them. Documentary films, phone aps and information on the subject will help them.
I hope that the non GMO foods don’t become too expensive for the average person to purchase after this Prop is passed.
Trader Joe’s not openly supporting Prop 37 concerns me because it is the only affordable place to purchase organic and non GMO foods now.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:35 am
This is describing the “off feeling” I am getting with prop 37. I did some digging and found this:
Prop 37 Trap Codex Alimentarius UN Trojan Horse.
If you have some time listen to this. It is from a site called oracle broadcasting. He is long winded and it takes him a long time to make a point, and it does come across has “conspiracy” stuff, but it’s still worth listening to. You can start 30 minutes into the broadcast before he gets to making a point.
http://www.oraclebroadcasting.com/archives.php?who=Behind_The_Woodshed
Scroll down to the Sunday, October 21, 2012 show called:
Getting Shot Countrywide Karen Kay Finding On Jumping From The GMO Frying Pan Into The Fire Prop 37 Trap Codex Alimentarius Trojan Horse Taking You Down Alternative Media Promotes Deception and Corporate Control NEW Proposition Offer Just Say NO GMO
January 25th, 2013 at 7:01 am
What I don’t see mentioned here is the fact that the “Organic” guidelines and regulations are being infiltrated and captured like every other Governmental or Quasi-Governmental Agency. Big Agra has fought for years to erode the definitions of Organic and Non-GMO and has successfully broken the barrier with GMO Alfalfa, which is now allowed into the organic farming industry.
Prop 37 may not have been perfect, but it would have sent Big Agra and their cronies in Fed Gov scrambling… well worth a few extra cents a day.
I’m all for Government leaving me alone, however I’m afraid these Libertarian principles, while good in theory just can be a ‘one size fits all’ solution to every aspect of life in the US.
Now you want to ask me if I think the TSA should be abolished and 98% of Congress and that Wall Street Puppet Obama be brought up on Treason and insider trading charges… And Feinstein and that whole Authoritarian crowd… keep your hands off my assault weapon.
I’m Libertarian here 100%.
April 25th, 2013 at 3:42 am
All the more reason for people to make their own INFORMED decisions about what they are buying and eating. With regulation in place, people turn off the critical decision making process and just assume that Mommy has made it safe to buy that stuff without any due diligence. Remove the governement involvement and people will be obliged to be adults and make better decisions.