Dr. Oz must be slipping in popularity to have taken such a backward stance on GMOs. Here's the proposal:
Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.
If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:
- Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
- Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
- Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
James Wheaton (a
lawyer, not a scientist), who filed the ballot language for the initiative, refers to it as "The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act."
I'm voting against it. Prop 37 is un-necessary due to the random and arbitrary nature of how it designates of what foods "need" to be labeled -- Milk, yes; Beer, no (for example).
What really bugs me about Prop 37 are the
exemptions; there should be no exemptions to such a law - it should be applied equally, to every food, and all of the time. There is no science or sense to it at all; unless, of course,
the Organic Food Producers are backing the proposition, then it becomes obvious why it is on the ballot, and who will benefit the most by it -- what with "organic" foods being more expensive than the rest, while also having been proven to have no real benefit over "non-organic" foods.
_________________
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.
23 Oct 2012, 9:18 am
