Town Square

Post a New Topic

Prop 37 failing???

Original post made by PA Resident on Nov 6, 2012

So strange, Californians vote for Obama yet against Prop 37?

Comments (21)

Posted by corporate spending, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Nov 6, 2012 at 11:39 pm

Heavy corporate spending convinced consumers that this proposition would force corporations to raise food prices.


Posted by wft, a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 6, 2012 at 11:47 pm

4 years ago, people vote for Obama for a change, and today people vote for Obama for no change. So what's been changed? Anyone guess?


Posted by bru, a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 12:09 am

bru is a registered user.

that really steams me ... how can people be so stupid.

but then again while the country may have the brains to reject people trying to buy high office with their own money, california seems to still be star struck and swayed by money to some extent .... and a lot of money was said to have been brought to bear on defeating this proposition, saying it would cost a lot and raise prices.


Posted by toobad37, a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 9:15 am

I also couldn't understand how 37 did not pass! My only consolation is that food products that do not us GMO ingredients can put that on the label and give us a choice!


Posted by For 37, a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 9:20 am

Do not understand why 37 failed? Simple enough: Follow the money trail.

Money (in this case Monsanto's) buys elections in this country sadly.


Posted by Jack, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 10:49 am

> My only consolation is that food products that do not us GMO ingredients can put that on the label and give us a choice!

That's a real possibility. Of course, you could use price of an item as an indicator: GMO foods will cost less. Buy the expensive choice, if you want to avoid GMO foods. Similar to "organic" vs.
industrail farmed foods.


Posted by C, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Nov 7, 2012 at 11:53 am

Because 37 was the reverse of advertising cholesterol free peanut butter. In the case, it was giving a totally-true statement with no meaning in order to gain popularity: in this case, it's giving a somewhat-at-best-true statement with the intention and connotation of being bad.
The exceptions made little to no sense and I think because of the stigma associated to GMO foods even "good GMO" foods would be effected. What about its' effect on golden rice?


Posted by I am a GMO, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 1:23 pm

With soooooo many exemptions the only real result would have been years of lawsuits and richer lawyers.........


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm

My opinion is that genetic engineering is great for research. Things like engineering bacteria to produce insulin ... things like that - AWESOME USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY. Or algae to produce biodiesel.

But for changing plants, it perhaps might be useful at some point, but the corporate SOBs have spoiled a possibly good technology by environmental and political abuse.

I do not want to see anymore artificial genes in the environment than there already are, in plants, animals or fish ... ie. salmon.

By the metrics these GMO foods have caused more problems than they have solved. Pests and weeds have adapted to the changes in the plants it meant to protect to the point that more pesticides are needed. A totally boondoggle. Our agriculture industry seems to bear no resemblance at all to the farms we all see on the packages of chemical crap they sell us. And now, like the nuclear industry they have poisoned any trust the public has in them even if they did have something great ... as I believe nuclear is.

Putting this stuff in the environment and letting it escape is bad enough, but they had to then persecute innocent farmers trying to make a living and ruin them. Hooking Indian farmers on a technology that did not work for them and has driven significant numbers to suicide is another shame on American military corporatism.

I want to know and be able to ignore and tell others to ignore these bad products and irresponsible companies, and they know labeling will the death of them so they lie, cheat and try to bully their way into the market instead of doing so by goodwill and brand loyalty had they been good corporate citizens.


Posted by Ducatigirl, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 7, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Ducatigirl is a registered user.

I am soooo disappointed in Californians! Almost makes me ashamed to admit I was born in CA.


Posted by Anon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Golden rice should sink or swim on it's own, it should not be forced on anyone, and should have to survive the public perception without the public being lied to or manipulated ... at least any more than we already are. Hiding it and forcing it on people is not the way to the go, and the Republican solution always seems to assume people are stupid so fool or force them to comply.

Perhaps it holds promise, or perhaps it is another wild goose chase, but if these too big to fail and too much money to convince people corporations realized they had to act responsibly it would be an all around net plus for everyone, even them in the long run ... but they never think about the long run.


Posted by lies about lawsuits, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm

"With soooooo many exemptions the only real result would have been years of lawsuits and richer lawyers........." Bull. Total red herring.

There are LOTS of mandated nutrition labels already on food. How many lawsuits do you hear about? None. It doesn't happen. So our food is labeled and we know what we buy.

Californians got snookered by big money campaigns driven by large corporations.

Again.


Posted by Jack, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 2:31 pm

"Golden rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of rice.[1] The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A,[2] which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under 5 each year.[3]" (from Wikipedia).

What's wrong with GMO crops saving people?


Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford
on Nov 7, 2012 at 2:52 pm

I agree, very disappointing. Those misleading ads on TV really work.


Posted by lies about lawsuits, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm

"What's wrong with GMO crops saving people?"

Nothing. What's wrong with labeling them?


Posted by just thinkin', a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Why wouldn't frozen food require GMO labeling???????


Posted by Jack, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm

>Nothing. What's wrong with labeling them?

If there is nothing unharmful to the consumer's health, why should a needless label be required? If people want to be sure that their food is not GMO, then it is up to those producers (of non-GMO food) to advertize that fact with their own labels.

BTW, most modern foods are genetically modified through selective crop breeding.


Posted by dont need no steeking rules, a resident of Portola Valley
on Nov 7, 2012 at 3:54 pm

"If there is nothing unharmful to the consumer's health,"

Wow.

That's a pretty big IF

Hey, the free market will decide. If a product kills ya, just stop buying it! Consumers don't need no steeking regulations! If the air is dirty, just stop breathing it!

Sissy consumers!


Posted by For 37, a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

GM food labeling is required in many countries. The US is behind the ball on this consumer protection issue, as it has been many times in the past. Remember lead in paint for instance? It was banned in the US DECADES after it was banned in Europe.

Sad...


Posted by Jack, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm

>Wow.
That's a pretty big IF

If you have prrof that GMO foods are dangerous to consumers, send such proof to the FDA. Until the FDA establishes such facts, there is no need for labelling.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Nov 29, 2012 at 4:28 am

Thank Goodness Prop 37 failed. Failed belief system designed strictly to run some people out of business while enriching others, all the while costing Californians more.

Even the EU rejected the Corn GMO French Study as completely flawed ( as, I might add, I stated).

Web Link

There is no evidence whatsoever that our GMO foods are dangerous to anyone..in fact, there is only evidence that they are more resistant to diseases and drought. In other words, they can feed more people.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post 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: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Acai bowls, headed to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,569 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 1,536 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,172 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,108 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 21 comments | 1,064 views