Why I’m Voting Yes on Prop 37: Label Genetically Modified Foods

by | Oct 29, 2012

To be honest, I’m a little surprised I even need to write this. In a national survey, over 90% of American voters favored labeling genetically modified (GMO) foods. Labels for GMOs are already required in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and dozens of other nations. In direct expenses, adding a label costs next to nothing for both companies and consumers.

I was a bit annoyed when I started seeing ads calling Prop 37 unnecessarily complicated and poorly written, but I didn’t think TV ads could close such a huge gap. Before the television blitzkrieg by the anti-Prop 37 contingent, it looked poised to win in California by a landslide, and I figured the lead was large enough to hold.

However, anti-Prop 37 contributions have totaled over 45 million dollars, with the biggest donors being Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico, and other giant food producers. (In comparison, the pro-Prop 37 contributions total just over 6 million—a little less than Monsanto contributed alone). As a result the most recent polls show Prop 37 is in a dead heat, and we are in danger of losing this opportunity to add transparency to our food system.

Legal Language

Despite what negative television ads have claimed, the proposition is neither complex nor poorly written (you can read it for yourself here). It’s fairly straight forward in fact. Prop 37 states that any raw food commodity that has been genetically manipulated must have a clear label stating such. Any processed food that knowingly contains GMO ingredients must also have a label.

Prop 37 does not require labeling for specific ingredients, meaning that if a product contains both genetically modified corn and soy (as most processed foods do) the ingredient list will still just say “corn” and “soy.” However, somewhere on the package it must say that the food contains genetically modified ingredients.

Restaurant food is excluded, so you could still enjoy your genetically modified BigMac in blissful ignorance. Animal products that are fed genetically modified foods (most industrial meat production relies on GMOs for feed) do not need to be labeled. Alcohol is also exempt. Organic certification already prohibits the use of genetic modification, so organic foods will not be affected.

The only additional provision, which I think makes sense, is that GMO foods and those containing GMO ingredients cannot use the word “natural” or anything similar (e.g. “naturally made”) on their labels.

Costs

Food companies add and remove food labels all the time—imagine how quickly they’d change the label if they learned processed foods protect against heart disease. However, major food producers like Monsanto, Kraft, and General Mills anticipate people avoiding GMO foods if they are labeled, so they see this proposition as a threat to their profits.

Prop 37 will cost consumers next to nothing, unless you choose to buy non-GMO food that happens to be more expensive. While anti-Prop 37 ads claim the cost to consumers will be $400 annually, that is based on a study (funded by the No on 37 camp) that assumes they will have to switch to non-GMO foods and charge more for them. This is a strange assumption that does not reflect the language of Prop 37, which does not ban GMO foods.

Some have argued that the more likely outcome is that they will start putting “May contain genetically engineered ingredients” on everything (over 80% of processed foods are currently made with GMOs) and hope we learn to ignore it, similar to what happened with Prop 65. This scenario would negate the costs projected by their study. Another study (with equally dubious funding) found that there is unlikely to be any additional costs to consumers. Importantly, labeling GMOs did not increase the cost of food in other nations.

Safety Concerns

So what’s all the fuss about? Are GMOs dangerous for us to eat or not? This is not particularly easy to answer, because the term “genetic engineering” is incredibly broad. Just as cancer is not one disease, genetic engineering is not one kind of biological change. The safety of each manipulation must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and testing should be rigorous and exhaustive to detect all potential problems, side effects and unintended consequences.

As anyone who has worked extensively with genetically modified animals can tell you (I did for years), the effects of a single gene deletion or insertion are often very surprising and can be quite subtle. Sometimes nothing happens, sometimes crazy things happen, and sometimes you can’t tell what happened until you let the animal’s life run its course and study it extensively. That isn’t to say we aren’t able to have a solid understanding of some genetic manipulations, but it is not a simple science.

It gets even more tricky when you’re talking about releasing GMOs into the environment. It’s very difficult to contain genetic material in an ecosystem. It tends to spread, and ecological balance can be very fragile. This is why you are not allowed to bring fruit with you on international flights. Even native, non-genetically altered species can disrupt an ecosystem, and the same concerns apply to new or altered species created in a laboratory.

I’m not making the case that GMOs are somehow inherently unhealthy or bad for the environment. Indeed, in some cases the potential benefit of GMO crops may justify their prudent use. My point is that as a culture we should understand that genetic manipulation is a messy science that requires thoughtful consideration and rigorous oversight. We should not take this subject lightly.

What’s at Stake

Big Food has always fought tooth and nail against any kind of labeling regulations, but are quick to seek approval of health claims to put on the front of food packaging whenever possible. It’s obvious why. For food manufacturers labels are about marketing, not about health. Positive labels sell more food, while negative labels discourage sales.

Our current food system is shrouded heavily in secrecy, and this is intentional. Food companies rightfully fear that if we know more about what is in our food and how it was produced, we might start asking more questions and demanding better. Currently corn, soy beans, cotton, sugar beets, canola, alfalfa, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and yellow crookedneck squash are genetically modified. Billions of dollars have been invested in this technology and the big food companies would not be happy if some of us decided to stop eating these foods.

What this really comes down to is transparency. Honest businesses with nothing to hide only win when more transparency is available. This is largely why organic food is such a big supporter of Prop 37—the organic certification system is incredibly rigorous and these companies have already invested in the transparency of their businesses.

Consumers also win with more transparency, because it enables them to make better informed decisions. If we believe certain GMOs are safe to eat, we can eat them. If some of us are more skeptical of one kind or another, we can skip them. Even Big Food benefits in the long run with more transparency, because it creates more confidence in their products as they are proven safe.

Prop 37 does not make any judgement on GMO foods. It does not ban them and it does not regulate their use. It simply requires food companies to indicate on their label if GMOs are present, so consumers can know with confidence what they are buying and eating. If you think this small act of tranparency is reasonable, you should support Prop 37 and vote yes if you live in California.

Tags:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up today and get a free chapter from my book FOODIST!

28 Responses to “Why I’m Voting Yes on Prop 37: Label Genetically Modified Foods”

  1. Courtney says:

    Thank you for this article, it was extremely helpful. The ads on TV are very misleading and I was getting confused on what exactly Prop 37 called for. I completely agree with its true meaning and will also vote Yes.

  2. Kelli says:

    Thank you, Darya, for using your forum to address Prop 37. I appreciate your level-headed comments!

  3. Ian Dixon says:

    From what I see, Prop 37 simply brings in for California the rules that are already in place in Europe.
    Now I notice Coke, Pepsi and Nestle have donated large sums to the vote no campaign. Strange because they all operate under the European rules.
    I’m in the UK so no vote on Prop 37 but I would urge all who can to vote Yes for it so that consumers see clearer labelling of their food

  4. Monica says:

    Thanks for these well-reasoned thoughts to help sort through the muck!

  5. EGA says:

    So let me get this straight, you can’t name any specific health threat, but just want to be “well reasoned” like Europe?

    This is an example of psuedo-science advocacy like anti-Alar and anti-Fracking efforts. Of course it is going to cost more money. There will be a cost of changing labels, there will be a cost for creating labels where there were no labels. There will be a tremendous cost to small businesses. As usual you point to only the biggest most wealthy companies in a giant market. What will this do to smaller suppliers, startups and others throughout the market chain? Most of all, you will cost people who can least afford it. You will raise the price of food with this silliness, just like all these efforts raise the price of energy to ban coal or fracking, etc… and it hurts families who can least afford the cost of your “enlightenment.”

    No matter what rationale you devise, your advocacy will raise the cost of food. GMOs are used to LOWER the cost to produce food! Costs rise when people buy your more expensive “politically correct” alternatives and thus driving down the overall demand for the cheapest alternatives. Also by creating new barriers and costs to compete for the smaller more innovative companies that work to gain footing in the marketplace through lower costs. And large companies are not in the habit of absorbing the cost of advocacy, they just pass it on down the chain, to farmers, suppliers, consumers, etc…

    Until you have HARD tested proof that GMOs are harmful, no one should support this, period. Want to help more people? Support the marketplace and open competition to help drive down food costs, fight against these pseudo-science nanny measures that make nannies feel good, but don’t help people in their daily lives.

    • Darya Pino says:

      I’m sure Monsanto doesn’t want GMOs labeled because they care about small business and poor people.

      Also, we don’t have a free market until we know what exactly we’re buying.

      • EGA says:

        I wasn’t commenting on what Monsanto wants. I was talking about what we as citizens should want. Especially do-good citizens to promote policies for the good of “everyone.”

        Sure we have a free market without this labeling law. People know what they are buying, when we go to the grocery store, we buy food. There are countless safety and labeling regulations to assist people in making their purchase decisions.

        If you are so pro-GMO-labeling, and free market, why not combine the two? If you think people want this kind of labeling, then start a company that offers this kind of labeling for your products. For example, “No GMOs” could be a label that you provide to all the special products that you think deserve market place preference. This is truly a free-market solution. If there is a market for it, then people will buy those products and demand more of them. Rather than using the power of the Government to force something that should be driven by the market. Right now it is NOT a safety issue, and until you can prove conclusively that it is, the government should not get involved.

        I am curious though, why is Monsanto such a bad guy for proponents of this labeling? I’ve seen Food, Inc. and other stuff like it. I just don’t get the obsession with Monsanto and other large food corporations. Monsanto is a brilliant company that creates all kinds of technologies for making food and other items much cheaper. I’m not a big fan of big business because I think they are dangerous when they get involved with big government and regulate out any innovation or market changing startups. I also see dangers in their fixing the game when it comes to intellectual property and the extension of those rights combined again with the power of a large and highly responsive government that can be influenced through the use of money. But they are just a company, filled with people and they make some truly brilliant things, things that help people live better lives.

        Just to ease your suspicions, I don’t work for a large corporation. I worked at a number of them, but started my own small business 13 years ago that fights every day to survive against giant corporations and their buddies in government with their hands in regulation.

    • Mike says:

      So, who is paying you to write this drivel?

      //you can’t name any specific health threat//
      Go to pubmed and do a little search, here are some things that come up. Here are the “specific health threats” (amongst others) that you want.

      Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice.
      “As compared to control maize, MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found.”

      A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
      “Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.”

      Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
      “In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants”

      A controversy re-visited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins?
      “The new data corroborates earlier findings that Cry1Ab toxin increases mortality in A. bipunctata larvae.”

      Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada
      Cry1Ab protein is detectable in the blood of pregnant women, their fetuses, and also in non pregnant women. Glyphosate was also detected in non pregnant women

      //This is an example of psuedo-science advocacy like anti-Alar and anti-Fracking efforts.//

      No, this is not pseudo-science, this is real science. Not incorporating science that does not fit into your world-view is ignorance (this is you). Also, were you aware that the “science” the FDA uses for GMO studies is provided by big-ag AND is based on 3-month rat toxicity trials? How about we do publicly funded research, use mammals, and then follow them for 10 years.

      //You will raise the price of food with this silliness//
      Where is the empirical data to support this?

      //Until you have HARD tested proof that GMOs are harmful//
      No, and no. The burden of proof should lie with the companies to provide evidence that they are NOT harmful, not the other way around. This should be done by publicly-funded research, on applicable organisms, over a proper time-frame.

      //Support the marketplace and open competition//
      The marketplace and open competition thrive on information being available to consumers.

      • Darya Pino says:

        I <3 my readers :)

      • Mike says:

        Above, I meant “use larger mammals” .. not “use mammals” (obviously rats are mammals) .. primates preferably.

      • EGA says:

        //So, who is paying you to write this drivel?//

        Not a soul. I came to this posting through a retweet from Daria’s boyfriend. I have no agenda other than to share my opinions. I’m not trying to insult or somehow “troll”, I’m just sick and tired of all the busy-body do-gooder laws and policies that end up hurting people in the end. It is ludicrous to use a referendum process at the state level to deal with an issue like this labeling, but what can I say, this is California.

        //Go to pubmed and do a little search, here are some things that come up. Here are the “specific health threats” (amongst others) that you want.//

        You are doing a fantastic job of proving my point with your psuedo-science post. Ever since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring we’ve had to live with this kind of science as public policy advocation. Someone produces a study that shows DANGER and we react to the detriment of so many. Just look at the 10s of millions that have died from malaria as an example.

        You did say one thing in that litany of jargon and terms that does make sense. Long term studies and MANY of them are necessary to make these claims. Until then, YOU HAVE NO PROOF!! A few studies in rats does not constitute proof of a health threat. If it did, the FDA would take action. If it did, Monsanto would pull the products and in a hurry, they know that they are liable to an army of litigation lawyers who want to do nothing but feed on their dead carcass and become the next Erin Brokovich.

        If you don’t like the FDA’s methods, than champion your own, prove it. I’m sure some enterprising bottom-feeding litigants would be happy to take that research and pay you back for your investment. No, instead you want the public to pay for your investigation based on the tissue-thin proof you have. If it is such a health threat, put YOUR money where your mouth is and prove it. Monsanto is staking their future as a company on what they are doing.

        //You will raise the price of food with this silliness//

        It’s common sense. Labeling requirements cost $ for the labels, $ for the classification of what constitutes a GMO, $ for enforcement, $ for review, etc…there will have to be an entire bureaucracy set up around this silliness, that costs MONEY! That money is going to come from somewhere and according to you guys it is coming from the food producers so I assume they will past that cost along, since that what a company does.

        //No, and no. The burden of proof should lie with the companies to provide evidence that they are NOT harmful, not the other way around. This should be done by publicly-funded research, on applicable organisms, over a proper time-frame.//

        This is my favorite part of your post, because it shows the full and complete bankruptcy of thought behind such advocacy. The allegation alone is enough to apply regulatory burden? It is enough to publicly fund countless millions of dollars in research? I need to change my profession, I’m going to be a “researcher” who starts making allegations, it will guarantee my funding. Oh wait, they are already doing that, it’s called “Global Warming”, no DDT, no Alar, no Fracking, no Toxic Shock Syndrome from breast implants, and on and on and on…

        //The marketplace and open competition thrive on information being available to consumers.//

        Never in the history of the world has more information been available to more consumers. Daria’s site is a wealth of information and it is duplicated literally tens of thousands of times. This labeling is not about information, this labeling is about CONTROL. It is about putting a warning label on something you consider to be dangerous to health, when you clearly HAVE NO PROOF. And guess what? This is California, odds are you will get away with it, not just this time, but again, again and again until finally there is so much of this that businesses truly start to leave.

        You can only cry wolf so many times. I look forward the results of the actual study on GMOs, which is in humans as we speak. We will get to 10 years and then what will you say next? Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be other psudo-science bandwagons to catch, there is always one around the corner.

      • Mike says:

        The fact that you put “global warming” in quotations says a lot, more than any response could. Good day sir.

      • EGA says:

        And you rolling over makes mine. Good day sir.

        Your response is instructive though, and very indicative. When truly challenged psuedo-science public policy advocates must always retreat. Their “facts” turn to insults and the discussion is over because anyone who challenges their psuedo-science is wrong and must be anti-intellectual.

        By the time their sky-is-falling scenarios are proven to be wrong, they are gone, on to the next hot topic. Just look around for all those Alar advocates or all the others, nowhere to be found. The sad part is this psuedo-science lives on as myths that continue to shape public policy. In the mean time, we buy mosquito nets for folks in Africa while so many continue to die from Malaria.

      • Mike says:

        You are doing a fantastic job of proving my point with your psuedo-science post//

        I’m sorry, but peer reviewed journals are the antithesis of “pseudo-science.” Homeopathy, crystal healing, these things are pseudo-science.

        //Long term studies and MANY of them are necessary to make these claims//

        I didn’t make any specific claims, I only posted these things because you wanted “specific health threats.” I gave you many examples, and yet you rejected them on no basis other than the fact that they ran counter to your prejudices. This is the height of ignorance.

        //YOU HAVE NO PROOF!!//

        If you knew anything about science or the scientific process you would know that science never “proves” anything, data either supports or doesn’t support certain hypotheses. The null hypothesis in this case is that GMOs do not cause biological harm, now, I have provided a small fraction of the total studies which reject the null hypothesis, yet you still accept it as truth.

        //A few studies in rats does not constitute proof of a health threat//

        It hasn’t just been rats, look again at the data, multiple organisms, pregnant women, fetuses.

        //than champion your own, prove it//

        Sorry, I’m fresh out of 10′s of millions of dollars.

        //No, instead you want the public to pay for your investigation based on the tissue-thin proof you have//

        It’s not just my issue, the vast majority of people want to see these labeled. And industry-funded science is bereft with conflicts of interest.

        //You will raise the price of food with this silliness//

        //It’s common sense. Labeling requirements cost $ for the labels, $ for the classification of what constitutes a GMO, $ for enforcement, $ for review, etc…there will have to be an entire bureaucracy set up around this silliness, that costs MONEY! //

        Let’s look at empirical evidence, even though you aren’t fond of such methodology.

        “…This is confirmed by the experience so far: when the current labelling regime (based on DNA/protein) was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests. Similarly, when Norway introduced its current labelling regime (similar to the one now proposed), it did not provoke any price increase or disruption in trade”

        Let’s also look at Kosher labeling

        “The cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule fraction of the total production overhead; it is so negligible in practical terms as to be virtually non-existent. A May 18, 1975 New York Times article reported that the cost to General Foods’ “Bird’s Eye” Unit, for example, is 6.5 millionths (.0000065) of a cent per item. ”

        //The allegation alone is enough to apply regulatory burden?//

        If corporations are going to turn the human race into its de facto research subjects, then yes, I think the burden of proof should lie on them.

        //This labeling is not about information, this labeling is about CONTROL. It is about putting a warning label on something you consider to be dangerous to health, when you clearly HAVE NO PROOF//

        Who is being controlled here exactly? Do you seriously consider it control to have corporations put “made with GMOs” on their labels when the vast majority of people in this country want it to be so? I’m not sure how much you know about our system of government, but the government is supposed to act in accordance to the will of the people, and not the interest of multinational corporations.

      • Will says:

        > A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

        This study was partly funded by Greenpeace, so it has an anti-GMO bias from the starting gate. I only mention this because it’s often argued that pro-GMO studies are skewed by biotech funding. This is fair criticism both ways.

        The study authors state, “Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity,” calling for 2-year feeding studies to establish proof. At best, this paper is only justification for further study.

        Here again, the EFSA found nothing in this paper to convince them that MON810, MON863, or NK603 are harmful. They point out statistical problems with this paper that also applied to Seralini’s past anti-GMO publications. You can view their criticism here:
        http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127-m.pdf

      • Will says:

        Sorry, I meant this in reply to Mike, not EGA. Didn’t click the right “Reply” link!

      • Will says:

        > Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice.

        MON810 maize was also tested on pigs. The duration of the study was longer (110 days), and they found:
        “In conclusion, long-term feeding of Bt maize to pigs did not elicit an allergic or inflammatory-type peripheral immune response. This was evidenced by the lack of antigen-specific antibody production and the absence of alterations in T cell populations and inflammatory cytokine production.”
        http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036141

        This casts doubt on whether or not the mice findings can be extrapolated to humans. Additionally, IgE antibodies against Cry1A proteins were “never detected in sera from humans with various allergies who might have been exposed to insect-resistant crops [25]-[27].”
        http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016346

        As you know, Europe tends to be anti-GMO. But even the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) acknowledges the safety of MON810 maize.
        http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1149.pdf

    • “Hard Tested Proof”….? Pffftt
      It’s coming, that’s for sure, it’s just a matter of time. In the meantime if we don’t do anything NOW we are all becoming part of the “proof” that GMOs are bad for us and our planet. I, for one, would rather not wait.

  6. Will says:

    I have a question. Would you also support labeling for conventionally-bred crops?

    What makes GMO stand out as such a lightning rod? GE incurs a lower risk of collateral damage than conventional methods. They have been found to be just as safe (if not safer) than conventionally-bred crops. Despite this, they are more rigorously evaluated for safety than their conventionally-bred counterparts.

    • Darya Pino says:

      If they’re safer then the label should help them, not hurt them. That said, your question is a bit confusing. Why would conventional food need a label if it is the default? GMO technology is new, not natural, and can do unpredictable things. Many, many people wish to know if they are buying them or not, so why shouldn’t they have that opportunity?

  7. Will says:

    Previously, courts have ruled that curiosity alone is insufficient to require labeling (International Dairy Foods Assoc. v. Amestoy, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala).

    When I say “conventional,” I’m talking about other methods of altering plant genetics as opposed to leaving them the way they are. E.g. mutation breeding, selection breeding, hybridization. If anything, modern genetic engineering is safer because there is less collateral damage and the outcome is more predictable.

    The argument that GE is not natural, and therefore bad, is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

    Also, how much time must pass before GE is no longer considered new? This would suggest it’s fine to remove the label after N years.

    If a specific GM food is “new” but has been on the market for longer than a specific new conventionally hybridized crop, wouldn’t the GM food be more time-tested? Why not label the hybridized crop if we are concerned with the newness of the food?

  8. julie says:

    I think the pro-GMO folks are getting very defensive. I don’t have to know the science about whether it is dangerous or not, but I have the right to know one way or another. if Monstanto can prove these are safe, they should go ahead and do so. Nobody is saying to make this stuff illegal, which is how the pro-industrial food folks are painting it. If it’s completely safe and I’m being silly, convince me, once it’s labeled, that it’s okay, and I won’t worry.

    • Darya Pino says:

      They’re trolls. It all appeared at once when the article went up over at Huffington Post.

      • Will says:

        FYI – I am subscribed directly to your RSS feed. I don’t read Huffington Post. I was trying to start a civil discussion about why GMOs deserve special labeling treatment, but I now get the sense that dissenting opinion is unwelcome here.

      • Darya Pino says:

        Sorry Will, your comments were totally reasonable. The other guy’s are just angry and antagonistic.

  9. roy says:

    fanticy world found miss…

  10. Peter says:

    Thanks Darya, I haven’t had time for due diligence (and unlike some people I’m not going to pretend that I have…).

    That said, my understanding is that there are clear results showing statistically significant differences in the physiology of animals fed GMO versus the closest achievable non-GMO feed over various lengths of time. European agencies have mostly come down in favor of GMOs by declaring that these differences are “not biologically relevant”, but this is not a meaningful term; it is a made up /ad hoc/ term. I think we should give the agencies some credit: they probably wouldn’t blow off the differences if they reflected drastic health detriments. At the same time, the differences do exist, and they do not spread on both sides of detrimental/beneficial; by-and-large they appear detrimental.

    While more research would help, this seems to cross threshold to warrant labeling in principle. The remaining question is whether the burden of labeling is significant in practice. I just haven’t been able to figure this out by reading the proposition. Who is responsible for adding the labeling and how can we expect this to play out? The scare ads say that the retailers would be responsible; shouldn’t the producers be responsible?

  11. Karen says:

    I think there is something wrong when we trust that something is safe only because someone hasn’t proven it isn’t. Since when has nature itself not been smart enough to create and evolve her flora and fauna to be exactly what they should be. Messing with this to make food cheaper is asking for issues. I cannot say that there is a direct correlation, but we as a culture have taken the ‘cheap’ route for at least the last couple generations, and look at what is happening – autism, ADD/ADHD, cancer, not to mention early maturity in our youth. Unintended consequences of ‘safe and cheap.’

What do you think?

XHTML: You can use these basic html tags such as <a>, <b> and <i>.

Want a picture next to your comment? Click here to register your email address for a Gravatar you can use on most websites.