California Proposition 37 Up in Polls, But…
California Proposition 37, the food labeling initiative is up in the latest poll, but there is a big caveat.
By more than a 2-to-1 margin, California voters favor an initiative to require food manufacturers and retailers to label fresh produce and processed foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
With less than six weeks until election day, Proposition 37 is supported by 61% of registered voters and opposed by 25%, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. An additional 14% were undecided or refused to answer.
The poll showed broad support among voter groups, but the interviews took place before Tuesday’s start of a major television advertising blitz by opponents aimed at changing voters’ minds on the issue.
The BIG BUT is that effected food manufacturers have started a multi-million dollar television ad campaign.
Most Californians will say, well, what will labeling harm?
But, what they don’t understand is that the initiative is a scheme for certain special interests and will push the cost of their food up.
When, they get the message – Prop 37 will fail.
17 Comments
Jayson Butler
So GMO food is so different that companies receive patents for them but not different enough to label them? And why has Monsanto banned GM food from their own cafeteria?
Gregory Flap Cole
What do these statements have anything to do with the Prop 37 initiative?
That is right, even if true, nothing.
Jayson Butler
So GMO foods are so different that companies receive patents for them but not different enough to label them? If we follow your logic; false advertising should be legal. And if GM foods are so safe why has Monsanto banned them from their own cafeteria?
Judas Cradle
So if a scheme is an invention purely for the purpose of profit with no
redeeming value to the consumer, which is precisely what you’re claiming
this law is by citing “special interests” as the sole beneficiaries of Prop 37,
then by your own logic GMOs have to be a scheme as well. Does genetically altering a product do anything at all for the consumer? No. It is entirely about helping the company have a bigger crop yield that puts more products on shelves that, in turn, cost less to grow. To my knowledge, no corporation has ever come forward to say, “We’ve genetically enhanced this product to provide better nutrition for our customers.” These food producers don’t even want to say the words “genetically modified” aloud because it will cause customers to flee in panic.
At the same time, I think you’re overreaching with your estimation of the ad campaign’s intent. Aren’t political campaigns mainly about capturing the undecided voter? After all, advertising is about causing people to make decisions. If someone has already made a decision based on evidence outside of your ad’s message it’s going to be much more difficult to reel in that fish (i.e. potential customer/voter) as opposed to one that either too thick in the head or too lazy to make up her/his mind. So far the best the professionals have managed is to produce material that ignores the words “genetically modified”. I don’t envy the people being paid to market this stuff. I would think housing that sits between an airport and a landfill would be easier to sell than GMOs.
Oh, and lastly, at the risk of sounding like the little guy from the book “Green Eggs and Ham” (because I’ve asked you this at least twice now), would you prefer to eat a can of corn labeled “genetically modified” or would you prefer the one that comes from the organic isle of the supermarket? What’s in your pantry? Also, are you comfortable with the idea of your children and grandchildren consuming product that were altered through laboratory science. Not selective breeding, mind you, but the actual swapping of DNA elements based on a human understanding of a food item’s genome? Science, after all, is always improving itself and trading formerly bad information for better information. In your opinion, has the science improved itself enough that you would willingly ingest the results laboratory experiments?
(formerly “Fond of Complex Analysis”)
Gregory Flap Cole
I see that your use of fallacies, including strawman arguments and rhetorical compound questions have not changed, even though your user name has.
Prop. 37 is a special interest scheme that is promoted, sponsored and funded by certain food companies and trial lawyers who will make the profits if and when it passes.
So, who benefits here from Prop 37 mandated labeling?
Not me nor my family for sure – just increased costs to fund some lawyer’s Mercedes.
Judas Cradle
“Fallacies” and “strawmen” are just words until you support your accusations with cohesive arguments. If you are so certain of your position then, please, show me the error of my ways. What makes your understanding of the “scheme” better than mine? What knowledge do you possess that I lack? I have already given you the formula necessary to defeat a strawman argument, if I’ve indeed made one. All you have to do is plug in the appropriate values. If you’re going to carry on making opinions in a public manner your readers need to see some evidence of critical thinking on your part, whether we agree with you or not. Otherwise this is not so much a blog as a reflective surface for the news media you link.
As for my questions to you, I have never, to my knowledge, asked anything in a rhetorical. Rather I have made the point of saying that my questions are not rhetorical. After all, I think you and I could agree that a person who cannot live the political philosophy she/he espouses is acting in bad faith. I merely wish to read that you are willing to follow the opinions you offer through to their inevitable conclusions.
Finally, in response to your question about the benefits of mandated labeling, I didn’t realize I would need to discuss the benefits of access to information with a person who publishes his opinions in a digital format for the world to see. That is one of the reasons you have this blog, yes? To keep the public informed on issues and opinions you think are relevant? Is there a situation you can think of, real or imagined, where the restriction of information promotes the free will of any individual other than the one(s) doing the censoring? If so, please present it, as I do enjoy thought experiments.
Gregory Flap Cole
Sorry, but “DNFTT”
Judas Cradle
Oh you wound me, my friend. What I have honestly done to “troll” you? Provided a dissenting opinion? Is that what really counts for trolling these days? Sad, really. Perhaps the “teacup children” of the younger generations have had more influence on digital media culture than I realized. If you don’t wish to match wits with me, very well. Although, does it trouble you in the least that your “fans” are watching while you do this?
Gregory Flap Cole
Just more noise…
Your1Friend
If GMOs are as infallible and salutary as the biotech industry says they are, why are you (and Monsanto) so very afraid to have them labeled?
NASA and its scientists and engineers are very proud of their incredible achievement in landing Curiosity on Mars–and rightfully so. This is science and engineering of the highest order.
Shouldn’t Monsanto and its GMO “scientists” and “engineers” see the label “CONTAINS GMOS” with great pride? After all, GMOs are going to save humanity from starvation, will they not?
Now wear that label “CONTAINS GMOS” with pride!
Gregory Flap Cole
Why do all of you Yes on Prop 37 folks use Strawman arguments?
Oh, that is right.
Prop 37 = a fallacy.
Your1Friend
“Prop. 37 is a special interest scheme that is promoted, sponsored and funded by certain food companies and trial lawyers who will make the profits if and when it passes.”
Yours is a fantasy worthy of Mitt Romney. Do you really expect people to believe your pro-GMO PR propaganda?
Gregory Flap Cole
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? I don’t really think this is an Obama vs. Romney debate.
Schratboy
Denying the consumer’s right to know about GMOs is a professional courtesy for an industry that’s advocated for fluoride in water and mercury amalgam for over 40 years
Gregory Flap Cole
Just more noise which has nothing to do with Prop. 37.
By the way, fluoride has been a successful public health measure to prevent dental disease.
MsLabradorGirl
I prefer to know what I am buying…until proper long term INDEPENDENT studies are done on GMOs and it is verified safe for my family, I will not be buying them. Even if it does raise food prices (which I don’t believe it will) it will be worth it to keep my family healthy. If GMOs are as safe as Monsanto would have us believe…we wouldn’t be fighting to have them labelled…Monsanto would be proud to label the results of their products!