California Proposition 37,  David Bronner

Another Health Nut Donor for California Proposition 37

Screencap of David Bronner

Police arrested David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, outside the White House. Bronner was protesting federal policy that prevents farmers from growing industrial hemp.

Here is another nut job that is bankrolling California Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative which will be on the California November ballot.

Here is the initial donation, Bronner’s company may have donated more.

California Prop. 37 donationHere is a video of this “Hemp” supporter:


Outside the mainstream, would you say?

Why should Californians approve an unnecessary initiative bankrolled by a bunch of health “NUTS?” – Like a doctor who wants to treat cancer with Eggplant!

Californians shouldn’t – Vote No on 37.


  • Colleen Ingram

    Another attack on the messenger, not the message. There will be people from all walks of life, with widely varying views that support the labeling of genetically engineered food. We may not agree on our religious views, our political positions, or how to raise our children for that matter – but we DO agree on IT’S OUR RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN OUR FOOD!!!!!!

    • Gregory Flap Cole

      Oh please. This is a special interest initiative sponsored by a bunch of health food nuts and attorneys who will financially benefit.

      All of this in the disguise of our right to know what is in our food.

      If this passes, it will do nothing but enrich them and push everyone’s food costs up.

  • Fond of Donuts & Prop 37

    Why should anyone be frightened about knowing the truth about the content of the the food they eat? If you are comfortable eating foods that have been altered through the application of laboratory science, do so. I, on the other hand, want to be informed when it comes to the food I feed myself and my offspring. Prop 37’s passage won’t inhibit either of us from making the choices we want to make.
    Though if this law does pass I would be curious to follow the blogger around the supermarket both before and after the labels change, just to see how much the “health nuts” impact his personal shopping habits.

    • Gregory Flap Cole

      Because the truth you reference in Prop 37 doesn’t make any difference except to special interest farmers, health food nuts and lawyers who intend to sue the food manufacturers of GMO foods.

      California food costs would greatly increase as a result of this unnecessary and poorly drafted initiative.

      Just say No to more unnecessary laaws.

      No on California Proposition 37!

      • Fond of Donuts & Prop 37

        Well that’s the rub isn’t it, with all this civilization and democracy? If you’re of the mind that producers should solve their cost problems with something other than the cheapest means available you’ll have to involve lawyers. As much fun as it is to fantasize about a world where you could subject the major shareholders of a company that creates the majority of a product in a laboratory–and then conceals the fact–to a personal brand of justice, that’s just not the our reality anymore. So the cries of, “No more lawyers! No more lawsuits!” are about as meaningful as cheering for your favorite sports team while in front of a television screen.

        I suppose what concerns me the most is why these corporate entities want to dodge the issue of transparency in the first place. It’s not as though a business can claim to have a “private life” when its entire purpose is creating products for public consumption. So if they are doing something “in private” there is no question that the results of those private actions are going to impact the public in some way. At the same time, the government insists on individual citizens coming clean about the contents of their lives whenever necessary, why should it be any different for corporate citizens?

      • Fond of Complex Analysis

        To be fair, you did open the door to ad hominem attacks with the use of “Health Nut” in the title of your post. It’s not particularly *reasoned* on your part to use such descriptions and then expect someone opposed to the idea not to return the favor.

          • Fond of Complex Analysis

            Agreed, she is in violation. However I think we’re all aware that political discourse is rife with emotional attachments and even the calmest among us are capable of coming unhinged. Looking at her previous comments, I would say this is not the poster on her best day. Yet her statement is hardly a barb in the context of the present day. Folks on the conservative/libertarian end of the political spectrum are accursed of being mentally unstable so often its like background noise. A similar case can be made for calling folks at the other end of things “pinkos”, “tree-huggers”, etc.

            My comment regarding ad hominem attacks was merely meant to illustrate a piece of advice my mother use to share with me whenever she found my friends and I using foul language: one’s words will often dictate the responses one receives and the level to which an argument will rise or descend. Has this not been the case in your experience?