I am all for healthy eating, knowing what is in my food and what I'm buying, where it comes from, and having a choice in what I feed my children. So with California paving the way, as it does so often for the rest of the country, when a badly drafted initiative such as Prop 37 is on the ballot, I feel the need to voice my two cents.
As Californian's, we should not settle for the way Prop 37 is written.
This prop has good intentions but is very poorly written. Why does this prop contain so many exemptions? For instance, Prop 37 exempts milk, cheese and meat from its labeling requirements although cows, pigs and chicken are fed GE grains.
Proposition 37 would require mandatory labeling of Genetically Engineered foods and
if Prop 37 passes, foods that will be required to be labeled as "Genetically Engineered", even if they have no level of a GE ingredient, include:
Labeled Exempt from Labeling
fruit juice....................................................but beer, wine and liquor=Exempt
canned soup from a grocery store...............but the same soup bought as 'to go' or at a restaurant=Exempt
Soy milk.....................................................but cow's milk and dairy products, eggs, poultry=Exempt
snack food from the store............................but same snack food sold at a snack bar=Exempt
cookies and candy made in USA.................but fortune cookies and candy from China=Exempt
And here's a Biggy....
Dog food with meat must be labeled.............but meat for human consumption = Exempt!
Another Biggy....
All organic food is Exempt, even though they may still include GE ingredients that would render them subject to labeling if they had not been organically grown.
This initiative also establishes a system that allows anyone to file a lawsuit about bad labeling, without having to prove any damages. Legal fees alone to defend themselves when they have done nothing wrong could drive small farmers out of business. The labeling requirements in this initiative would only apply to California, further destroying the competitiveness of California growers. This doesn't seem fair and balanced to me.
As Californian's, we should not settle for the way Prop 37 is written.
This prop has good intentions but is very poorly written. Why does this prop contain so many exemptions? For instance, Prop 37 exempts milk, cheese and meat from its labeling requirements although cows, pigs and chicken are fed GE grains.
Proposition 37 would require mandatory labeling of Genetically Engineered foods and
if Prop 37 passes, foods that will be required to be labeled as "Genetically Engineered", even if they have no level of a GE ingredient, include:
Labeled Exempt from Labeling
fruit juice....................................................but beer, wine and liquor=Exempt
canned soup from a grocery store...............but the same soup bought as 'to go' or at a restaurant=Exempt
Soy milk.....................................................but cow's milk and dairy products, eggs, poultry=Exempt
snack food from the store............................but same snack food sold at a snack bar=Exempt
cookies and candy made in USA.................but fortune cookies and candy from China=Exempt
And here's a Biggy....
Dog food with meat must be labeled.............but meat for human consumption = Exempt!
Another Biggy....
All organic food is Exempt, even though they may still include GE ingredients that would render them subject to labeling if they had not been organically grown.
This initiative also establishes a system that allows anyone to file a lawsuit about bad labeling, without having to prove any damages. Legal fees alone to defend themselves when they have done nothing wrong could drive small farmers out of business. The labeling requirements in this initiative would only apply to California, further destroying the competitiveness of California growers. This doesn't seem fair and balanced to me.
For much more information on Prop 37, here are a few helpful, non-partisan links.............
.jpg)
This article is inaccurate. Let me break it down:
ReplyDeleteALCHOHOL
Wine, beer and spirits are exempt because the federal government already tightly regulates labels for those products.
SOUP AND SNACK FOOD
In restaurants, "to go" counters and snack bars, foods aren't labeled with caloric or other food information. Prop 37 doesn't seek to change this by adding a GMO label.
SOY MILK
Soy milk may contain GMO ingredients, such as GMO soy. Cow's milk, other dairy products, and eggs don't contain GMO ingredients. They are just products from animals (animals haven't been genetically modified... yet)
FORTUNE COOKIES
Foods made in China already are labeled if they contain GMO ingredients. China requires GMO labeling.
DOG FOOD
The meat in the dog food is not what would be labeled. It's the filler ingredients such as corn. Per my "milk" argument, there aren't any genetically modified animals for human consumption available on the market.
ORGANIC EXCEPTIONS
One of the requirements of Organic foods is that they don't contain GE ingredients. It's not an exemption, it's default.
Please reconsider your points here, because they are skewed and inaccurate.
Also, one of your "non-partisan" links goes to a sub-page on the NoOnProp37 website. Pretty transparent what's going on here!
ReplyDeleteColey,
ReplyDeleteBeer and wine are made with ingredients that can contain GMO's.
The soup and snack food in some restaurants and snack bars ARE the same as those purchased in the grocery store and should be required to be labeled.
Cows, poultry and beef are not genetically modified but they do eat feed that is.
Fortune Cookies...if China requires the labeling of GMO, why shouldn't the US require China to label its products coming into this country?...if the US requires its own food to be labeled, shouldn't food from China be required to be labeled as well?!
Organic food, though is not supposed to contain GE ingredients, can possibly contain GE ingredients.
The non-partisan website IS just that...the Legislative Analyst's Office - California's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor.
Importantly, the passage of this bill will possibly cause frivolous lawsuits to the small family farmer. This bill needs to be re-written.
I saw something by a olive farmer in the Chico that said he could no longer label the olive oil grown & pressed on his farm as natural because it has been processed -- the processing is simply pressing the olives to get the oil. I think that sounds crazy. How is a local farmer supposed to be able to compete?
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Courtroom of Canada has opened the doorway to permitting international multinational organizations to dodge their Canadian tax liabilities by siding with British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in its 20-year tax fight while using the federal government.
ReplyDeleteThe huge court endorsed an appeals courtroom ruling about "transfer pricing," which permits [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]cheap fioricet[/url] multinationals to cost their subsidiaries large prices for ingredient expenditures for you to lower Canadian revenue.
The Section of National Income had challenged Glaxo Canada's utilization of a licence arrangement that allowed it to pay Glaxo Swiss subsidiary Adechsa among $1,512 and $1,651 per kilogram for the decide to buy of ranitidine, the productive ingredient in the anti-ulcer drug Zantac.
Glaxo also paid out dad or mum small business Glaxo Group a six for each cent royalty on net income of Zantac.
The price of ranitidine exceeded the $194 to $304 for every kilogram billed to Canadian generic pharmaceutical corporations Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Inc. by arm's-length suppliers.
The government properly argued in Tax Court that applying the "reasonable" prices to Glaxo Canada might have increased the subsidiary's net earnings for 1990 to 1993 by $51 million. http://headachetreatment.net However the Federal Court of Appeal in July 2010 overturned the Tax Court's choice and rejected the department's argument that good promote worth paid by generics was the suitable measure. It sent the calculation back again to your Tax Court for the redetermination.
Creating for that Supreme Courtroom, Justice Marshall Rothstein said in the ruling released Thursday the Tax Court "erred in refusing to take account of your licence agreement."
"The generic comparators do not reflect the economic climate and corporation truth of Glaxo Canada and, at least with no adjustment, do no point out the value that is going to be affordable in the circumstance, had Glaxo Canada and Adechsa been dealing at arm's length."
Queen's College tax law authority Artwork Cockfield reported the ruling is regarded as a gain for Glaxo and [url=http://headachetreatment.net/]fioricet[/url] could prompt many others to adopt advanced cross-border tax structures to shift earnings to low-tax jurisdictions.
"There's enormous flows going again and forth and enterprises have an incentive to video game the system by shifting profits typically to the lowest-tax region," he said. "It's destructive for Canada considering it supports aggressive worldwide tax preparing that sends revenues exterior on the nation."
Canada's lessen company tax rate compared to U.S. could, although, insulate it from this kind of profit shifts somewhere between businesses with operations on either side on the border, Cockfield added.
Wife of a Dairyman, you stated that, "I am all for healthy eating, knowing what is in my food and what I'm buying, where it comes from, and having a choice in what I feed my children", so it's very confusing that you're against what is perhaps the one and only chance we have at GMO labeling. I hear so much talk about the exemptions, which are absolutely common sense exemptions. Please look at the following website to answer some of your questions on exemptions: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26457.cfm. I feel that you're doing your blog followers a disservice, and urge you to do more homework on this proposition, which is of monumental importance. This is a grassroots, David and Goliath effort - and we, the consumers, farmers, and environmentalists are up against Monsanto's millions. We need to band together and get this through. The time is NOW...
ReplyDelete