…is a waste of time, money and will do nothing to improve the health, or safety of foods.
Voting NO on this POS proposition is a no brainer. I’ll bet the morons in Kalifornia screw this up anyway.

In fact it will create problems through out the country for food producers.
It’s a proposition written by a trial lawyer for trial lawyers.
This proposition needs to be shit canned.
Here’s a great article about it.

“Genetically Engineered” In California: A Food Label We Don’t Need
By Gregory Conko, Henry I. Miller

October 08, 2012
Originally published in Forbes

From “food miles” to farmers’ markets, it seems that consumers have never been more interested in the ways their food is grown. That’s one motivation for Proposition 37, an initiative on California ballots in the coming election that would require labeling of “genetically engineered” (GE) foods.

It is a bad idea, and also an unlawful one. We discussed its legal problems in a previous Forbes.com column.

Labeling advocates claim that GE foods are somehow “unnatural” and might be unsafe. At the very least, they say, consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, so, why not tell people if their corn flakes have been engineered and let them decide what to buy?

That might sound reasonable and seem to reflect how our choice-driven marketplace works, but there are several problems with it. For starters, GE foods are not in any way a meaningful “category,” which makes any choice of what to include wholly arbitrary. Nor are they unsafe or any less “natural” than thousands of other common foods. If anything, they are likely to be safer, because the techniques used to make them are far more precise and predictable than older, conventional methods of genetic improvement. But as federal regulators have said, a mandatory label implies erroneously a meaningful difference where none exists.


Comments are closed.