Lake County News | California

But a government Of, By and For The People!

Dont worry about Monsanto. There are plenty of sheep to feed.

That's a great picture.

You guys are right, the answer to Mansanto'a iron-like grip on the government is more government.

The study, published in a reputable American journal, links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto's patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet died more quickly.

Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen who lead the research team, told reporters on Wednesday that the rats' diet reflected the kind of exposure that humans who eat genetically engineered food should expect.

"This is around the level [that] the American population may eat, where, unfortunately GMOs are not labeled," Séralini said. "In Europe, we have this labeling, and it helps us to avoid these compounds if necessary and promote personal choices."

I'm glad the nay sayer suggests independent study. This info was not paid for by Monsanto:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn

Perhaps he/she should try his/her own medicine.

Vote YES on 37

I meant DDT. 2-4D was also banned but is being brought back again because weeds are becoming immune to round-up.

I've tried to make some arguments, offer alternatives, and ask questions... and it just turns into a personal attack

Could you quote a personal attack here? I've seen people go to great lengths and provide good arguments and factual data along with photos. I've seen them make a joke of your arguments because they are a joke. Someone making your argument into a joke isn't a personal attack. Calling you ugly and ignorant and disclosing your criminal record would be a personal attack, but I'm not doing that, I'm merely using it as an example. I think everyone here has been quite thoughtful and carried on a great discussion.

Your Article cited the AMA saying there's no scientific evidence that there is anything wrong with GMOs. The same doctors prescribed Phen Phen, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, and Palladone. All these had thorough scientific studies and were proved to have no significant health risks until people started dying because of them.

When Bush appoints Monsanto's Linda Fisher as head of the EPA and Monsanto and the EPA have an revolving door policy between them you come here to tell us we should take the word of corporations over our own common sense?

Remember 2/4D? There's another debacle for you. It wasn't supposed to hurt anything but insects. Then they found years later it killed birds and made eggshells to thin to withstand incubation. Yeh, you bet I trust corporation to look out for our welfare. This measure is going to pass overwhelmingly.

Yes on 37. This ensures that the public will be informed. The only thing personal here is my right to know. I want labels and will vote accordingly.

Here's a good article that just popped-up on LCN: pinion'>http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27071:fulton-and-magliulo-food-labeling--a-cautionary-approach&catid=29pinion

For all those passive readers on this forum: just look at posts like the previous one to see what kind of company you join in supporting prop 37.

I've tried to make some arguments, offer alternatives, and ask questions... and it just turns into a personal attack with very little relevant information being presented. At the very least, I urge everyone to thoughtfully consider the repercussions of imposing more government regulations on our food market. Do some independent research on the health effects of GMO food, and make sure that you understand not only what the law considers to be "genetically modified", but also what is exempted from this law. If you feel that this law provides an unfair advantage to certain groups over others, or is being used as a stick to tip the competitive playing field, then this is not a moral use of law, and should be scrapped for that reason.

Enjoy yourself in your stance. Enjoy your cigarettes, talking on your cell phone while driving, not buckling your safety belt, not wearing your helmet on your scooter, don't read nutritional labels or other warning labels, drive whatever speed limit you like, disregard the product recalls from your favorite corporations, toss all your recyclables into the trash bin or even the street, take anything you like from whomever you like, punch anyone in the face, and just disregard any other laws, ordinances, regulations, and other guidelines you like.
Enjoy your solace while you can because your health and well being will unfortunately be compromised soon. You are lost and confused. I can only think that you or yours, must have a farm or o processing plant of some sort. I do take comfort in reading that the majority of posters understand the importance and impact of this initiative.
YES ON 37 is a vote for the public and being informed.

More regulation and more government, based on underlying unfounded fear, with a sprinkle of anti-corporatism: that's why i'm fundamentally opposed to it and will vote NO. This isn't what laws are supposed to be used for, and that's why we have way too many of them today that ultimately make us worse off. Ironically, it'll be the large, profitable companies everyone is trying to attack that will be best suited to navigate the political and regulatory climate to increase their profits and power in the long run.

However, I will take some solace in seeing all the supporters' food choices being cut by some large (unknown) percentage when they try to avoid GMO labels at the supermarket.

Have existing companies who's benefits and shortcomings are well understood by all take on the cost of labeling rather than something we know little about that sneaked into our food chain take the hit. No thank you. Rather than let commerce decide, I think we should let the voters decide. I don't have a scientific lab to examine food products and I certainly don't trust scientists working for the GMO companies to tell me what's natural. I think the initiative and referendum forum is the perfect format to decide this issue. If this proposition loses my garden goes in next year.

guywithanopinion, I don't think you understand what I was proposing. I'm not saying that organic and GMO are the same thing. I'm using that as an example for suggesting that instead using the heavy hand of government to force companies to label their foods as "contains GMO", that we should first consider voluntary solutions, such as public demand for companies to label their foods as "non-GMO" if they believe it brings value to their products. This would be like making a proposition that any "non Organic" products should be required to put that on their labels.

And for those who think it's free to change a product's label, you're right, changing the artwork is virtually free. But, you're ignoring the costs associated with determining whether your product needs the label to begin with, and the costs associated with lawsuits that will inevitably be filed by people who claim misrepresentation. That's another reason why I think you should let the companies who will profit from "non-GMO" to label their products as such, and let them take on the additional costs in doing so.

I took this photo one late October afternoon. This is the former site of Krause's Slough when I was a child - a lowland area of about 60 acres that was home to muskrat raccoon, ducks and geese and many herons. As I passed by one morning on the school bus I saw tilers out there. A few weeks later there was excavation equipment. A few weeks later, it looked like this. I took this photo because when I passed by earlier in the day I saw this field freshly tilled by a digger. Rich blue/black Minnesota dirt was showing full of the peat ground color from the old slough. These areas were so nutrient rich in older times they actually caught fire on occasion and burned underground. In this afternoon the dirt looked like it ha a like layer of gray snow on it. In the tractor treads its pure gray. People, that is about a 1/4 inch layer of potash. That's the final project for the year. Now it will lie there til either the snow comes or the wind blows. If the snow gets to it before the wind does, much of it will wash away during the spring melt, hence probably why so much is put on. If the wind and rain come first most of it will be washed into the county ditch system and will find its way into the rivers and lakes.



So you might think, "Oh well, how big is southern Minnesota, it might no be that bad."

Here's i the regional map covering several states that use these farming methods.



The lakes are shot. The runoff from the fields have created so many weeds they limit fish and wildlife growth. Lakes that once were host to 100 muskrat huts have none because they've been poisoned out and weed choked out. Millions and Millions of mile of tile lead to the rivers and 2 inches of sudden rain create floods. Farmers say nature meters in the chemicals. That was just about one of the dumbest thing I think they'd ever heard them say. Once when my post office worker brother was trying to stop farmers from draining a slough in southern MN so they could farm it, a county supervisor said, sloughs at nuthin but a sewer. Yes, he's right, they are natures sewers. Would you like living in an area where there are no sewers?

You might think I'm getting off track here but I want to demonstrate the idiot mentality of the farmers and scientist and grocers who accept GMO and the rest of the farming methods as okay because it brings them more money. Money robs their conscience of right and wrong and creates a "If it brings jobs and money it must be good for us mentality." We can't just keep sacrificing our health for instant gratification and more money. We better start living like we used to with hard work, an aluminum boat, an economical car, one vacation a year and with a happy family that appreciates one another, eats good healthy food at the same table together.

If we don't we'll all be dying at 50 years old with 5 Mercedes in our 7 car garage.

The truth about GMOs

America grows enough food to feed the world a few times over but new technology and the want of more money drives GMO food companies to compete for farmers money anyway possible. When I was eight year old my dad hitched up the horses to the two row corn planter. We had a wire stretched the length of the field with a knot in the wire ever 40 inches. This wire ran through the planter and tripped a couple seeds out ever 40 inches. When you got to the other end of the row, you moved the stake over 40 inches. When we were done planting and the corn grew, we could cross-cultivate the weeds with a cultivator. A cultivator stirs up the soil and takes out the weeds between the rows. 30 - 50 bushel an acre was great!

Over the years science has been figuring out how to move the plants closer and closer together to get more yield since nutrients for the plants is not a problem anymore. GMOs help this. Farmers can already pump enough nitrogen in the soil and lay phosphates on top along with other nutrients so much they can nearly grow plants on top of each other. The problem is that nature wants to produce plants of its own like hemp, button weeds, burdock, milkweed and cockle bur. How do you get rid of these when the corn plants are to close together to spray beneath the corn leaves as we used to? You genetically modify the plant to be resistant to Roundup. Now that you can spray everything you can plant eight inches apart in 20 inch rows and use ever so narrow tires and GPS guidance systems and just lay it down like a fog blanket!

Now that many plants are tolerant of Roundup and bugs have began becoming tolerant of the GMO plants, farmers are planting refuge rows. Refuge rows are five rows every twenty five rows that are not GMO plants - you know the old style plants. The bugs (corn borers etc) that will soon adapt to the newly created GMO plants try the new plants and don't like it and migrate to the old plant. This slows down the evolution of the bug but won't stop it. Nature has ways and those ways will catch us. Nature love moderation and balance and it will balance us no matter how we fight it.

I asked my retired brother Jerry the corn dryer salesman if he was worried about GMOs. His answer? "Not at my age I'm not. If I was younger I would be."

The farmers and scientist have no conscience when it comes to money. While this isn't meant as a blanket statement, its certainly true in most cases. The small towns in MN pay millions of dollars for water treatment facilities for a town of 350 people then dump pig feces and urine from 1200 hogs that take up 1/100 of the space that 350 humans do, into big clay pits lined with plastic until spring when they load the liquified waste into field spreaders to fertilize the food you eat.

There have been indications in the Midwest that some of the characteristics of GMO food have been picked up in the plants of the wild and some of the weeds that invade Roundup Ready Corn are becoming resistant to Roundup resulting in super weeds. Yield has not gone up and nutrition has go down. Why are they spending such an inordinate amount of money to stop labeling when its only an extra million a year to place it in effect. The reason not to ask existing products that are non GMO to be labeled is, GMOs are the new kids on the block. They haven't been here for thousands of years - tested and true. As much as 70% of our foods now are GMO and we want a way to say no.

I grew up in Southern Minnesota, lived on a farm and farmed. My kin are still all back there. One brother retired from selling chemicals to farmers and one retired from selling corn dryers and hog containment buildings another brother is a lawmakers and another a postal carrier. I go back for a visit every year for a month. I noticed a few lonely corn stalks in the middle of a 40 acre field on the gravel road approaching my farm. I asked my brother what happened there. He said the farmer thought he bought Roundup Ready Corn, but in fact the company sent him the wrong seed. After it was two late for a second planting, he sprayed his corn with Roundup to rid it of weeds and killed his crop. Farmers overdo everything in the Midwest. Their goal is not our health - its profits. If it brings them more money, they'll grow it. Seriously! Soy, soy products, corn, corn syrup and corn oil are the most prevalent food in our food chain. Pick up a can of food anywhere and see if you can find something without corn in it.

My brother was driving back from work one day and saw a farmer he knew filling some tanks behind a huge tractor and stopped to chat. The farmer invited him onto the tractor for one swing around the field. The farmer of course doesn't drive the tractor because its driven by GPS technology and only varies an inch off course at the most. My brother asked him what chemical he was applying? The farmer told him it was roundup. My brother said, "Gees Gene, I don't even see any weeds."

The farmer's reply was, "Ya, I know but I had extra Roundup lying around and not much to do so I figured why not make sure?"

This is the mentality of far to many farmers - if a little is good, think what twice as much will do? They sit up on top of machines that would pay for 5 Rolls Royces with a boat 3 snowmobiles and 2 jet skis in the barn, complaining about not doing as well as the farmer next door and they are subsidized by your tax dollars.

The cost, oh my! To add to a label, like: New And Improved!, 30% More etc. Yeah, right, so labeling GMO content will cost about that much more – zero!
But if producers decide to source non-GMO alternatives, thus giving consumers alternatives if they so chose – the consumer can decide and bear additional costs, if any.
This is not a “heavy hand of government” issue - The People want to know what is in their food and they should have that right! But corporations routinely run over our rights!
The spurious arguments against GMO labeling are all generated by mega-corporation, think-tanks, trying to convince the 85 – 90% of The People that want labeling, that they shouldn’t! It’s organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that always masks their mega- corporate agenda as defense of the “little and local guy” – that they really could care less for and then they get the “little guys” to beat their drums.

But here is a real local / little guy, issue that Lake County should be considering – If labeling GMO foods gives rise to consumer demand for GMO Free Foods then Lake County could be very well positioned to become a source for those products.

We are isolated here and our up-wind neighbor – Mendocino is GE Free! We have a GE ordinance that could be strengthened. The additional profit in providing GMO Free and organic content could be a gold mine to our economy, if the ‘ol boys that are now beating the corporation’s drums, wake up to their own true self-interests – Lakians could start working together to drum in a new, more prosperous and healthier agricultural practice and stop fighting over issues created and managed by and for the corporations. Stranger thins have happened!

The proposition is about labeling, plain and simple. The reason why some of us are discussing the facts about Monsanto, is to inform you about why it is so important to at least label them. The initiative should be to make GMOs illegal, but with so few people even aware of what is involved, we will be lucky to even have the companies tell us of our guinea pig status. And don't forget that some of the real guinea pigs were sickened and died. Why do you suppose Monsanto is spending millions to keep us in the dark?

You do realize that in order to be legally called "organic" a company must be certified as such... By the government. Before this, we had the ever ambiguent 'natural' title. Your need for evidence is duly noted but your inability to see the facts here is alarming. 'Organic' and a GMO label are not the same things, so please dont muddy the waters with your misguided outlook.

No on 37 is a vote for large corporations and their agendas... Plain and simple. Yes is a vote for consumers and our right to be informed.

I am amazed at the 'logic' used in some of these posts including the last one. Voluntarily? Lol!! Right! The worst offenders will not label their products. This is nuts... All we as consumers need is a small logo on each package that informs the consumers. Many will not change the way they shop but those of us who care, WILL. These major corporations fought nutritional labels as well. Research on GMOs is not yet able to undoubtedly link health risks to GMOs but many studies do reveal problems. Many other countries already require these small markings on food packaging.
There is no political agenda here, just a healthy, long living agenda. Please think straight and do the right thing here... YES ON 37!

Guys, if this is just an attack on a big corporation's power and profits, then you're essentially trying to trick the public for voting for this bill by making claims that it's just about a "right to know". Just the fact that there are all these underlying political agendas puts me in great opposition to this bill.

For those of you who have legitimate reasons for passing this law at face value, I'd still like someone to address my previous questions. I also haven't heard a good argument against why we can't treat GMO like organic foods, where companies can voluntarily label their products with "No GMO" if they choose, instead of using the heavy hand of the government to force the opposite.

Please take me back to school on this matter if you feel like doing that.

Is the mass-produced Insulin (which I totally agree is a great idea) going to be introduced into our food? Will we be informed in such a case? I'd rather know than not know just what is in the food I buy.

That's why I can often be found in a Big Chain Grocery Store aisle, holding a package of something and reading the list of ingredients. I may stall aisle traffic and for that I apologize.

But I do need an answer from someone who absolutely knows the truth of "Is the med introced into our food? How will we know?" See, I do not have diabetes; In fact I am HYPO-glycemic, the flip side of diabetes but no less debilitating than diabetes can be...only upside is that the hypoglycemic attack, I think, may last less time than does the diabetic OMG I am in a sugar problem because I did not notice that some fool put 2Teaspoons of white sugar into my tea instead of using the non-sugar and non-harmful to me anyway, sugar substitute.

Thanks for "listening."

200,000 Indian farmers did not commit suicide because of a product. They were driven to such desperation by the takeover of their lives and destruction of their seeds which were handed down for generations. They know that by doing business with Mosanto, they threw away everything their ancesters had created as well as their means of supporting their family. You are correct, this isn't about a product, although there are good reasons to avoid that product. The fact that some people are unaware of them, hardly means the rest of us want to stick our heads in the sand with you.

The point I have been trying to make is that the rreal problem with GMO is that we are giving control over everything we eat to corporations which have demonstrated a complete lack of concern about anything other than power and profits. Look into this, and you will see why this initiative is so important.

Someone said "Genetic modification is the splicing of genes from one species into another species." Does this include gene modification that does not involve a second species? I'm just asking for details because I'm trying to make a point. Unless every one of you can DEFINE what it means to be genetically modified, and then also define the exact specifics of what the law includes or excludes, labeling it on your food will mean nothing.

If the real purpose of your argument is to make a blanket statement that food labeled with GMO is bad, and that we shouldn't buy it, then this goes way beyond just "right to know". It then becomes the majority forcing an opinion on the minority using law. This is not the purpose of the law.

If Monsanto is guilty of causing Indians (more than 200,000?) to kill themselves then they should obviously be taken to court for manslaughter. This needs to take priority since there is very unlikely anything wrong with their food.
I'm unaware of ANY health benefit to "Organic" food but one could argue that the pesticides are not good for the environment and if companies want to market their products as 'pesticide free' or even 'Organic,' then by all means they should be able to put that label on their foods, just as Monsanto free products should be able to label their foods: "This product did not make 200,000 Indians kill themselves."

The Stanford study did not say no benefit, it said no more nutritious, which is doubtful over the long term, oh hell it is flat out wrong . If you split up identical soil and grow half organic, half chemical there will be no difference. If you continue the experiment for 50 years you will see that the chemical method depletes the soil with the expected loss of nutrition. The Stanford study has received lots of well deserved criticism.
Not bloodthirsty? ask the relatives of the 200,000 plus Indian farmers who have committed suicide over the destruction of centuries of seed development that Monsanto has wiped out. They are achieving their goal of dominance over Indian ag, and that involved the destruction of lives. Also ask the Canadian and American farmers who have felt their legal wrath.
Do not confuse real medical research with what Monsanto and others are doing. Monsanto is well aware that these foods have shown serious health effects in laboratory animals and their response is to bury the research, read Jeff Smith's Seeds of Deception.

Apparently the odd sign-in inability thing has been fixed without my checking on it before I put my usernarme IN the Subject window. Thank you Mr Jensen or whomever.

Also, I neglected to mention that when Monsanto Etc's crap for its' plants gets blown onto Farmer Fred's produce, Monsanto Etc may cheerfully sue Fred for theft of The Megalopolis' plants-and-people poisons.
When Fred looks down the stretch of years that Big Farmer can tie him up in stupid litigation, delays, time out for some idiotic reason(s), he sees very clearly that he WILL lose no matter what high-powered slate of attorneys he might be able to hire, uh IF the attorneys will agree to a contingency settlement. Lots of luck with that, Fred.

Stand up. Rather, sit down at your window to the world also known as a computer, learn a thing or three about what's being done to your food, then stand up and Just Say No.
Come to the faremrs' markets. Seeya.

Thanks to you both for The Question and several Answers.

Totally right about Monsanto. Owens-Cargill, et al. The summitch of having Monsanto etc hybridized Whatever Plant pollens get airborne onto Farmer Fred's FORMERLY organic crops.
Monsanto, of course is no dummy; it knows how to track the simplest breezes that carry its' pollens, poisonous Monsanto-or-whatever-developed junk that ruins Fred's being able to claim his produce has not been fed poisons.

Fred's former customers who loved his tomatoes, corn, melons stay away in droves once they hear that Fred's Produce has been purposely damaged by Das Corporation(s)..

So. If you would rather not eat a tomato-fish-cantelope blindly without great god whatever Corporation NOT being forced to inform you in plain language...such as the milk producers now labeling their containers with the info that the milk in the bottles has not been altered by bovine growth hormones also known as "crack for cows."
Trust me, please....you wouldn't like the messed-with milk. When the Dairy Corps heads became aware of the lack of dollars flowing into their coffers as it had been just a short while back.
ANYWAY, when the Dairy Corps began labelling containers with the info that the milk/cheese/whatever had not been laced with BGH, whammo, up again went the income from happy buyers.

Side note: There is a Food Co-op presentation of 30-40 pound boxes of local produce on Sept 17 between 1 and 3 p.m. If anyone wants in on this it might be a really good idea to contact the Food Co-op by phone or internet and ask whether there might be room for another name on the list of Show-ups.

Also: does anyone happen to know what caused writers-in to be arbitrarily callled "guest?" Seems to me I recall that just a few weeks ago, a persons' username apppeared automatically with the post. Now? No. Odd.

blood thirsty viscious corporation? That might be stretching it a little and you have not defined all the types of GMO that the label would cover. Splicing the human gene coding for insulin into bacteria, to mass produce insulin, has done wonderful things for diabetics. No longer do they have to use beef or pork insulin. Was this done by the blood thirsty viscious pharmaceutical companies that want to take 'complete corporate control' away from us 'stupid' people?
Should foods that can't fit the guidelines to be called "Organic" have to label their packages with an "Inorganic" label? Once again this Stanford study shows absolutely NO benefit to paying extra for organic food yet some people choose to buy it because they don't trust 'studies.' The situation is the same with GMO. Let people put it on their labels if they don't use genetically modified seeds.

Genetic modification is the splicing of genes from one species into another species. Species which would never cross in nature. The industry stated purpose of all of this is to gain control over the worlds seed supply. Monsanto said that. Toward that purpose Mosanto has an army of lawyers who destroy farmers who have the misfortune of having GMO pollen blow into their fields. Monsanto is betting that the people of the USA will be stupid enough ( perhaps misinformed and strangely trusting of corporations is more accurate) to let them continue to take complete corporate control of our food supply.

This election will be a huge test of our willingness to cede control of our own food supply over to a bloodthirsty and vicious corporation.

Can someone explain to me what exactly would be considered a genetically modified food? Does selective farming or hybridization count? What about a food that isn't genetically modified from the start, but the cells within the food got "modified" by some external factor after their fabrication, like with radiation, or some other chemical process? Do those count?

The title of this article is "the right to know". Can someone here please explain the specifics to me? I'd like to know before I vote.

Unless there is a clear black/white answer, it just seems like it's going to cause either a false sense of security or a false sense of insecurity depending on what kind of person you are.

Check the LA Times story today. The science seems to be lumping a slight difference between organic and non.

I agree with the previous guest. If companies want to brag that they don't use genetic engineering or pesticides or whatever, let them put it on their label? Otherwise people are mislead. Be specific! Why even say "organi?." What does that mean? I guarantee you it isn't the same meaning that I read about in Organic Chemistry versus Inorganic Chemistry in college.

I'm sorry. I referred to showing people the "shelved and shelved foods." I really meant to say "shelved and refrigerated" foods. Hmm, maybe I'm hungry and that's why I'm having to edit.

Have a good dinner, everyone.

About organic food vs non-organic, I have heard for a long stretch of years that All "Organic" means is that the food bought in the huge chain markets have not been subjected to pesticides or herbicides in the past ninety days before the stuff appeared on the store shelves.
Working in a health store in 1994 really got my attention. Members of a communal group of people from Cobb Mountain would come in after food stamps were issued..."We need ORGANIIC food! Our mentor says that we should only eat certified organic foods."

Most of the people were so thin I thought a stiff breeze would blow them off their feet. I'd show these people the refrigerated 'organic' foods, carrots that had gotten rather limp, lettuces, celery in the same condition, and my Lord, the prices! Okay, folks from Cobb, here is what we have...I'm sorry the carrots are priced at $4.00 a pound; yes, they HAVE been here a while."

I had no idea if some of the foods had retained some of the vitamins these folks were seeking. But The Mentor had decreed that his words and his alone were what his people should have.

Likely because of the time spent working in the health store and shaking my head because of the huge percentage of price mark-up, I really did wonder if The Mentor had possibly lost some of his "marbles."

And the demand for Soy Everything was amazing. Cripes no wonder some of the customers were so pallid and thin; they simply could not afford the shelved and/or shelved Soy Whatever. I could not inform the customers what had been done to the soy plants. Look: if you soak the soil around a plant with pest poison, everything-but-Soy-poison so nothing else would grow in the Soy area, you are going to eventually eat the produce...soy beans, tofu, what not, that have drawn the poisons into the soy beans which were the base of so many products. Will I, now that I no longer serve customers of the health store, eat soy anything? NO.

I once munched on a few soy beans just to see what all the hoohah was about. The poor little things simply had no flavor. The beans were an attractive shade of green but they didn't TASTE green. Think of broccoli, possibly home-grown. It's been tended to carefully, pests have been detected and removed by hand, and oh how good real food that is supposed to taste "green" instead of tasting like nothing.
Alright. Food at the Farmer's Market may be too costly. (Due to the stench of the Lake, getting to the Clearlake Park food grower's sale on Friday evenings has been something most people simply stopped doing.)

So. What do the people who cannot abide the smell of the lake nor the too-high prices on most of the produced good DO to get good-for-us food? I wish the people well; some of the huge chain markets have both organic and non-organic produce to sell. Take a look at the picked-when-absolutely-unripe peaches, melons, tomatoes, bananas that must be brought home and placed in some part of the kitchen where they can become less like rocks and actually edible. Okay. But: those items WERE picked green so that trucking them to various stores would not harm the produce.
Look again: So what if a potato has an obvious mark or two that means some bug was hungry? Take a paring knife, cut out the bruised or munched-on food, scrub it in clean and clear water, good luck with that as well, go on and cook it. You will be amazed at the taste of Real Food as compared to what Big Farm Corp wants people to buy.

Seems to me the organic/non organic hoorah is a matter of taste. No, not taste buds. Organic food, if a person wants to pay $4 a pound for "certified organic" veggies, won't wake up any taste buds. Sorry.

To those who present information/data or any hint that genetically modified food may NOT be bad for you... you are missing the point.

Let's not even go there as this is not the debate. The real problem is in NOT KNOWING if our food has been modified. Let me, an adult, who pays his taxes, and shops accordingly, know which foods have and have not been modified... that is all. Just inform us. Let's let researchers and scientists present their information and we can sift through it as consumers. Meanwhile, we MUST label our foods. So many other countries have already done this.
The point is not to "SCARE" or "LIE" to the public... all we want is a simple label that says GMO.
Please open your eyes and vote yes on the most obvious ballot initiative in the last few years.

I haven't fully made up my mind on this issue yet, but I'm leaning toward voting "no" for the simple fact that our government is already too big and I think private industry should work this out. Anytime to add another layer to the bureaucracy, there are unintended consequences and political winners/losers.

Read the facts here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...of_Geneti
cally_Engineered_Food_(2012)

To answer the person's question about "why you would ever vote no", here is the fiscal impact as quantified by the CLAO. Last I heard, the state was a little short on money. Every million counts.

- Increased annual state costs ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods.
- Potential, but likely not significant, costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure. Some of these costs would be supported by court filing fees that the parties involved in each legal case would be required to pay under existing law.

Furthermore, have you read who is exempt? So if you go to Safeway you'll be bombarded with GMO labels, but if you go to McDonald's you're fine? Governments always play favorites, and it's not fair.

"Exempt from this requirement are 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.""

Let me propose this: if your food DOES NOT contain genetically modified ingredients, and if you think it's important, then why not put THAT on your label? That way, the companies that believe it's a selling point can pay for putting it on their labels, and any of the resulting legal costs for people who challenge their claims. Organic foods already do this. Thoughts?

This amazes me that anyone (sans major corporations) want to vote NO on 37?! To be informed and make informed decisions is my right as a consumer. I can eat and drink what I like but I deserve to know if it has been altered in this fashion. Smoker's know that smoking is harmful. I am certain that cigarette companies opposed labeling their packages. Smoker's know have labels and have the right to smoke. PLEASE people... vote yes on this common sense initiative....they are RARELY this obvious and beneficial.

It is also "propaganda" given out by the folks that want to believe that genetic engineering is bad for us. Just because you don't understand genetics doesn't make it bad. Did you demand proof to show that soy milk is safe? Of course not. You don't want to think that it could be bad for you. Niether soy milk or GMOa have shown any reasons to doubt safety, yet you damand a much higher burden of proof for things that you don't understand. Go read the research. It is not just done by 'agrichemical companies.' Ask your doctor. Ask a geneticist. Don't have a conclusion before you know the facts.

It is our right to know what we're eating. I demand to be an informed consumer. If I choose not to participate in the world's greatest guinea pig experiment, then it's my right to opt out.

Insisting GMOs are safe by touting industry funded research is not convincing -- all propaganda, as always. Show me the proof that GMOs are not hazardous to my health. Don't turn it around to expect me to just swallow the lies, only to find out later it is detrimental to my health and that of my family.

The lack of trust is well warranted. Those agrichemical companies have harmed us many times over without any accountability -- remember Agent Orange? PCBs? DDT? Those same companies now want to control every morsel of food that gets put into our mouths. No, thank you! And, no, you may not get away with it, one more time!

It is NOT about "The right to know what you're eating." This is how you label the proposition because Nobody thinks that we should be unable to find out what we are eating. The difference is that you basically want a skull and crossbones on the product which will make people think that genetically engineered foods are somehow bad for us. They are not. There are endless scientific studies showing that nothing is wrong with eating these foods. Why don't we put a big warning label on every single product that has high fructose corn syrup? At least we know that this sweetener is harmful to our health.
If you think these foods deserve a warning label you should be prepared to show how they may potentially be harmful to us. Lets not lie to the public by putting a warning label on something that is proven to be safe, and don't try labeling the debate "The right to know."