Here is one of the ballot propositions on which I will be voting in this election:
Proposition 37: Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.
Here is what Ballotpedia has to say about Proposition 37.
I invite members of the Aleksandreia community to try to persuade me either to vote yes or to vote no on this proposition.
I’m not sure there is actually a significant difference between plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways and plants or animals with genetic material not changed in specified ways. Most, if not all foods we eat have been genetically altered due to selective breeding, controlled cross pollination over centuries of human agriculture. It’s just that lately we’ve sped up the process via laboratory procedures. I’d recommend investigating that aspect.
Indeed, as Dadvocate states, mot of our food is a result of breeding genetic modification over the past 10,0000 or so years.The wording “changed in specific ways” only makes any sense at all if they deliniate the specific ways. I suspect enforcement costs will exceed the estimate by a huge factor. Inspection for compliance will need to be from field to seed producer to supplier and through the supply chain.
The concept of “natural” food is so nebulous and abused at this point that it is pretty meaningless. I have no idea how any regulatory function can control it other than through crony regulatory methodology.
I would vote against this proposal were I still residing in California (I assume this is where you are).
I’ve got to go with what’s presented in the voter guide:
“You should have the right to know what’s in your food.”
A number of the modifications are ones that would not be found in nature or by routine cross breeding. They sometimes substitute genetic material from another plant. That said, I think that if you trust big ag, you should vote against . If you don’t, vote against. What I would keep in mind is that this may disproportionately affect smaller producers. The costs of labeling hurt them more. If they had an exemption for small farmers, I would consider voting yes based upon John’s reasoning. W/o that exemption, my suspicion is that this could be designed to help big ag vs the little guys.
Steve
Simplistically (to me), if we believe genetically modified foods may be unsafe, all should be regulated not just the “large” producers. If we believe foods with genetically modified components should be labelled as such, and that that labeling is beneficial to consumers, all should be required to do so.
I still find the wording to be rather nebulous in use of the term “specific ways.” If the need is for labeling of specified genetic modifications, list those and require labeling. Frankly, I find the paranoia over GM food to be as spurious as the paranoia that led to almost complete elimination of radiating food in order to “sterilize” it. Much of the bacterial contamination of food would be greatly decreased with safe radiation of that food.
I agree on radiation. On GM foods, I think there is a lot of paranoia. However, I think unintended consequences apply to more than just economic policies. I am more inclined to not regulate small producers as they have more direct incentives to produce quality products, especially if they are selling locally. One bad mistake and they are out of business. For the big producers, I think they can, and have, built in shoddy practices and getting caught as part of the price of doing business.
Steve
Against. I don’t want to enable or empower the hippie organic-food enthusiasts.
You might be interested in knowing that people from AAAS and Royal Academy of Sciences list climate denial, opposition to transgenic crops and vaccines, and creationism as the big 4 anti-science positions in the public.
When I began looking at the issues 12? years ago, two things persuaded me on transgenic crops. The first was that every study in Science and Nature finding a problem with transgenic crops turned out to have had major problems before it was submitted, or problems were found later.
The second was learning why transgenic crops are seen as needed by scientists. At a AAAS meeting a decade? ago, there were a number of talks on food issues, and I took advantage of that to ask questions afterwards, and read in Science and Nature. They said that organic food could feed a 19th century population, but transgenic crops were needed for a 21st century population. They need less pesticides, on average, and more food can be grown per acre, important when we have already taken over such a high percentage of land for the our own use, the world’s population will grow 30% by 2050, per capita calorie consumption will grow as the poor eat more. Additionally, land will become less productive because of climate change and independent of climate change, and by mid-century, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to interfere with the ability of many crops, and many other plants, to use nitrogen efficiently. Transgenic crops are needed to deal with these and other problems.
Also, while people focus on the evils of transgenic crops, there are quite a few much more important ag issues that we ignore.
Thanks, everyone.