Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!

Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Palo Alto, California Forecast
TownSquare Forum
(Postings listed from most recent to oldest)
View in an RSS Reader
Choose category to Display:
  ALL CATEGORIES   AROUND TOWN   BOOKS   CRIMES & INCIDENTS
  HISTORIC PHOTOS ISSUES BEYOND PALO ALTO   MOVIES   PALO ALTO ISSUES
  RESTAURANTS   SCHOOLS & KIDS   SPORTS   INAUGURATION BLOG 2013
  JAY THORWALDSON'S BLOG   LONDON 94301   PAUL LOSCH'S COMMUNITY BLOG   REBECCA WALLACE'S AD LIBS BLOG
  STEPHEN LEVY'S ECONOMY BLOG

POST A NEW TOPIC GO TO MESSAGE BOARD VIEW RETURN TO HOME PAGE  
Bookmark and Share
Answering Weekly's call on Prop 37
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Pete Whelan, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2012 at 8:07 am

Regarding The Palo Alto Weekly's recommendation to vote no on Prop 37,10/19/12,I submit the following:

PA Weekly's statement that "genetic engineering has been used for some

fifteen years to make plants grow bigger, stronger, faster and resist

spoilage or insect damage" is inaccurate. Genetically engineered (GE)

products, known also as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were

foisted on the public in the early 1990's. GE crops are designed to

express two traits: resistance to the herbicide,glyphosate,sold as Roundup, and production of a bacterial toxin within the plant itself.

The Weekly says "40% of food products contain some GE ingredients." Actually, the USDA estimates that as much as 80% of retail food contains GMOs.

The Weekly's claims that "no studies have found any health impacts, [but] the industry is too young to know with certainty..." reveals a lack of currency and also a somewhat skewed perspective on this topic. Many scientists—including those at the

FDA—MD's and healthcare experts have expressed concerns about the

safety of GMOs.

Food labeling is vitally important to consumers, with polls showing consistently that 90% of consumers are in favor of GMO-labeling. Over 60 countries label or even ban GMOs. So, why doesn't the U.S.?

Is it because certain biotech, chemical and junk food giants exert

enormous influence over the USDA, FDA and elected officials?

Interestingly, lawyer and current Director of Food Safety at the FDA,

Michael Taylor,was formerly Monsanto's VP of public policy.

Monsanto produces 90% of the world's GE seed and also manufactures Roundup, the world's biggest selling herbicide.

Taylor's FDA guidelines require no GMO safety testing. Because Monsanto's patent rights on GE seed,independent testing of GMO's is tightly restricted.

I don't want to ruin anyone's morning coffee or afternoon tea with elaborately drawn out details of conspiracy theories. Not at all.

I want to end my message on an upbeat note of hope.

Prop 37, would put a label on GMOs. That's it.

This is done in the European Union countries, Japan, Brazil, Australia, even China. None of these countries have seen any significant food price increases since labeling was implemented.

Prop 37 was written to comply with existing state health regulations.

It does not create any new regulatory department.

It's exemptions are based on common sense.

Over two thousand real California farms and food producers have endorsed Prop 37.

Check out carighttoknow.org and be informed.

Thanks for reading this message, and oh yeah,

Vote Yes On Prop 37

Pete Whelan Alma Street


Add a comment | Add a new topic
If you were a member and logged in you could track this topic

Comments

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2012 at 7:07 am

I agree with you Pete. I'm a little shocked with Weekly's stance. If only people would do some research. So much for "investigative journalism". I guess the weekly enjoys supporting the destruction of the Amazon forest from genetically modified soy.

To each his own.


Posted by just thinkin', a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm

Most of the veggies I buy are frozen. That counts as "processed" by the text of the law - READ IT.

Why are school lunches exempt if the reason for the law is to protect children? "Prosessed for immediate consumption" is exempt -please read the text.

Waiting a year or two to get it right is a better idea than rushing something flawed and no enforcement for yearsssss of lawsuits over the nits........


Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: * Not sure?
Comment: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box. *
Verification Code:   


Best Website
First Place
2009-2011

 

Palo Alto Online   © 2013 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.